[ Page 393 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Prince Rupert port development. Mr. Chabot — 393

Potential amalgamation of Capital Region municipalities. Mr. Wallace — 394

Road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson. Mr. Smith — 394

Better service in liquor stores. Mr. Gardom — 394

Boxcar shortage. Mr. Phillips — 395

Statements re budget. Mr. Williams — 395

Labour Code of British Columbia Act. (Bill 11).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 396

Mr. Chabot — 400

An Act to Amend the Corporation Capital Tax Act. (Bill 21).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 402

Mr. Morrison — 402

An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Settlement Act. (Bill 22).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 402

Mr. McGeer — 403

Mr. Morrison — 404

Mr. Wallace — 404

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 405

Mr. Phillips — 406

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 407

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. (Bill 23).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 410

Mr. Morrison — 410

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act. (Bill 25).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 410

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 410

Mr. Morrison — 410

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 411

Sessional Reports Suspension Act. (Bill 20).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 411

Mr. Morrison — 411

Mr. Gardom — 411

Hon. Mr. Hall — 411

An Act to Amend the Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance Act. (Bill 39). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 412

Beef Grading Act. (Bill 6).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 412

Veterinary Laboratories Act. (Bill 31).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 413

Mr. Richter — 413

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 413

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act. (Bill 2).

Committee, report and third reading — 414

An Act to Amend an Act Respecting Medical Services. (Bill 10).

Committee, report and third reading — 414

An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act. (Bill 3).

Committee, report and third reading — 414

An Act to Amend the Agricultural Land Development Act. (Bill 5).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 414

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 414

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 415

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 415

Report and third reading — 416

An Act to Amend the Milk Industry Act. (Bill 7).

Committee stage.

Mr. Williams — 416

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 416

Mr. Phillips — 416

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 416

Mr. Phillips — 416

An Act to Amend the Oleomargarine Act. (Bill 8).

Committee, report and third reading — 417

Farm Income Assurance Act. (Bill 9). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Mr. Phillips — 417

Mr. Smith — 418

Mr. Richter — 418

Mr. Schroeder — 418

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 418

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 419

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 420

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 420

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 420

Mr. Phillips — 420

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 421

Mr. Phillips — 421

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 422

Mr. Phillips — 423

Mr. Wallace — 423

Mr. Richter — 423

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 424

Division on Amendment — 424

Mr. McGeer — 424

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 425

Mr. Williams — 425

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 426

Mr. Wallace — 427

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 428

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 428

An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act. (Bill 43).

Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 429

Motions

Substitute motion 6. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 429

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker I'd like to introduce someone in the gallery. I'd like to introduce to the House Mr. Dan Radford, a coal miner from Nanaimo, later of the Canadian Labour Congress and the B.C. Federation of Labour. He is also the father of the First Member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Radford).

Oral questions.

PRINCE RUPERT PORT DEVELOPMENT
CONFLICTING WITH SKEENA FISHERIES

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This question is directed to the Premier. There was a critical report this morning in the Vancouver Province relative to the port development in the Prince Rupert area, I was wondering if the Premier could give an explanation to the House, in the light of his receiving a report prepared at a cost of $5,000 saying that there would be a serious conflict between the port development in Prince Rupert and the Skeena fisheries, I'm wondering whether he could give us an explanation as to why he would enter into a capital sharing arrangement with the national government on July 23, after having received this report, a report on June 13, stating that there's a very serious danger of damage to the fisheries of the Skeena estuary.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that we have no capital commitment with the federal government as to the location of a coal port. I'm sure you don't want to confuse your question by misinformation.

Now the Member has asked a question as to why the report was not released. I understand you would like to know as well when it was received in my office.

The report was asked for by the provincial government because….

MR. CHABOT: I didn't ask that…

HON. MR. BARRETT: You didn't ask that? Oh, well I think it would be good. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: …yet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like you to know everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Open government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Open government, that's right. And if you'd come to me before the session I would have helped you frame the question.

Mr. Speaker, because of a difference of opinion over the location of a coal port between myself and the Hon. Jack Davis, the Hon. federal Minister of the Environment of the Liberal Party, the federal government had commissioned some inquiry, into the possibility of locating a port, a coal bulk-loading port, in the Prince Rupert area, specifically in the estuary at Ridley Island.

The Government of British Columbia asked Howard Paish and Associates to prepare a report for the Government of British Columbia. That report was completed and sent to my office at the end of June this year. On July 16 copies of the report were sent to Mr. Davis, to Mr. Marchand and to the mayor of the City of Prince Rupert, asking for their comments before the report was released to the public, as is standard procedure.

I received a reply from Mayor Lester with his comments on August 8, and I received further comments on August 13. Mayor Lester showed his copy to a Mr. Scott, chairman of the Prince Rupert Port Committee, and Mr. Scott sent his comments.

The copy went to Mr. Davis on July 16; we received a reply from Mr. Davis on September 17. I have no hesitation now in making the report public. However, I cannot at this time make the letters from Mr. Davis or Mayor Lester or Mr. Scott public until we have permission from them to do so.

I am at a loss to explain why the Vancouver office of Mr. Davis' department has not seen the report, since it's been in that Minister's hands since July 16. However, that's perhaps an administrative problem of the federal government.

But since we have had Mr. Davis' comments of September 17 I've had the chance to read his comments and now have no hesitation in making the report available to this House. I've asked my administrative assistant to bring along copies for the leaders of the opposition parties as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Yes, the agreement in principle talks about the port development programme, and it says that the governments agree in principle — that the governments of British Columbia and Canada will share the development costs associated with all facets of port development at the national harbour at Prince Rupert. Is that it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right, with the proviso that environmental clearance is given to the location of those facilities. That was always understood. And perhaps the Hon. Member, through you Mr. Speaker, hasn't been familiar with the exchanges of opinion between myself and the

[ Page 394 ]

Minister on this issue that have occurred since almost from the first month I came to office and that still stand.

POTENTIAL AMALGAMATION OF
CAPITAL REGION MUNICIPALITIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), in the light of the considerable unrest that he's created by a public statement about potential amalgamation of various municipalities in this whole region, if he would care to give some definitive statement — at least as to when we can expect a clear statement of government policy on this issue?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I never create unrest. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: You sure did in Oak Bay. Come and see us in Oak Bay.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't think I've discussed amalgamation as such. I've stated the fact that there are a number of areas in the greater Victoria area that will have to come within an umbrella of some type of incorporation, and that we have to look at the whole area of the southern end from Sidney, or North Saanich, right out to Colwood and Langford to determine what the right procedure should be.

All I'm stating is that we should have full discussion on this sort of an area to see what local government should represent these areas, rather than having it done piecemeal. That's the only thing I've said. There is certainly nothing imminent in any amalgamation or anything else of that sort.

MR. WALLACE: Can I take it from the Minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, that therefore, in contradistinction to the Kamloops-Kelowna situation, full consultation and respect for the decision of the municipalities themselves will be respected? Or could we have amalgamation imposed by government?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, you could have anything, I suppose. But I might say that I have written letters to each of the mayors in the separate municipalities and the regional representatives in the Colwood-Langford. areas to meet with me. I think, next week to have some sessions together to see what the feelings of the mayors in the communities are. Certainly there is no….

MR. WALLACE: In Oak Bay?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Oh yes, Oak Bay — we class that as a community. (Laughter.) But certainly there'll be no action taken this next week. (Laughter.)

ROAD FROM FORT NELSON
TO FORT SIMPSON

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Minister of Highways. It is a matter of record in recent weeks and in the press that a gas pipeline will probably be built from the Mackenzie delta down through the southern part of Canada. In view of this anticipated programme, which will require tremendous amounts of material and labour, does the Minister contemplate an accelerated programme with respect to the road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson so that we can capitalize on movement of the freight that will be required to service that particular project?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Well, there would be very little point in building a road to the border if the federal government isn't going to meet that road at the border with a road coming south from the North West Territories. A letter was sent from the Hon. Jean Chretien, who is in charge of that area, to the regional district in your area, in which he said he understood that the provincial government is willing to meet them at any time, in construction terms, at the border. And we are willing to build our part; we are willing to go now. We are waiting for word from the federal government. I have asked for a meeting with the Hon. Jean Chretien. We were going to meet on the 12th — now I understand it has been cancelled at his request. We are going to have to look forward to another meeting.

MR. SMITH: One supplemental question for the Minister. There does seem to be a lack of communication or direction between the provincial government and the federal because of the statements that have been made; so I would suggest to the Minister, the meeting is of importance and we would certainly like the advice of the Minister when it can be arranged.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, that is not a question.

BETTER SERVICE
IN LIQUOR STORES

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney General. We see from the press reports that bottled beer is going up to $3 a dozen and canned beer to $3.15 a dozen; the cost of imported beer and wines is now almost out of reach to the public in the province of B.C. I would

[ Page 395 ]

like to ask the Hon. Attorney General that of all these increases and prices which will produce well over $100 million in liquor profits to the government, what plans does he have in store for the consideration of the consumer and better service? For example: refrigerated beer, openers for the bottles, increased rewards to those people who return containers, and I am talking about all sorts of containers — wine bottles, beer bottles and spirit bottles.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I fought manfully against the increase in the price of a case of beer. The companies wanted 22 cents; they received 12 cents, which brings the price up to $3, similar to the prairie provinces, except one of them is $3.05. No particular increase, except for tax adjustments, for 20 years…increased costs of cereals, wages and other factors.

In reply to the portion of the Member's speech which referred to suggestions of future policy….

MR. GARDOM: No, no, present policy. What are you going to do for the consumer?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All of these increases have been put upon the board; they are not board increases as such. They have been put upon the board by increases in the cost of say, imported wines. They are not increases originating in the board, but they have to be looked at closely and your suggestions will be considered.

MR. GARDOM: Just as a supplemental to the Hon. Attorney General. He's not suggesting that the revenues of the province are going down by virtue of the fact the price of liquor is going up…by 5 per cent….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is no change in board mark-ups.

BOXCAR SHORTAGE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Maybe the Member could take his problem up privately with the Attorney General.

I would like to address a question to the Hon. Premier. The matter of the shortage of boxcars in British Columbia was discussed during question period on Monday, last. The Premier stated that he would be making a statement to the House yesterday.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he has any statement to make to the House today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am still pursuing the matter, Mr. Member. As soon as I can get the information that I am seeking, I will give you all the details. There is a desperate shortage of boxcars. We are working on it every day. I'm trying to nail down whether or not there is substantial evidence to prove that both federal railways are withholding cars. I said that I have suspicions, and I am still waiting for further reports on that. We are on the situation hourly.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the Hon. Members realize you can't keep asking the same questions day after day.

MR. PHILLIPS: I understood he was going to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps he will make a statement at the appropriate time and save questions each day.

STATEMENTS RE BUDGET

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): To the Hon. Minister of Finance: Would the Minister indicate whether the statements from the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (HON. Mr. Lauk) on budgetary matters appearing in last night's newspapers are statements of government policy? And if, in fact, the budget next spring will be $2 billion, and there will be no changes in corporate tax in this province?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I haven't read the newspaper reports of the Member's statement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Supplemental to that, Mr. Speaker….

HON. MR. BARRETT: All he's doing is expressing an opinion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, he's entitled to express his opinion. This is a new government.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, specifically, I asked: was the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce giving budgetary policy for this government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. He's expressing his opinion.

MR. WILLIAMS: So, it was not the policy of this government?

[ Page 396 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: He is expressing his opinions. I haven't even read the newspaper account. They may coincide, I don't know.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the introduction of Bill 11 to second reading before this assembly.

I note that there has been a good deal of public comment on this particular bill, both in electronic media and the newspapers. I imagine that the opposition parties have been paying very close attention to the comments that have come from various sectors of the community.

It would seem to me that there is emerging a certain attitude towards the new legislation, and I would like to offer some comments today on some of the central philosophy contained in the bill, the general intent of it — precisely what the legislation seeks to do.

I think that central to the whole new concept of this new legislation is the role that the new La our Relations Board will play as the agency which will be responsible for administration of industrial relations in the province.

The new board is certainly a key feature of the new legislation. The structure and function and philosophy of the board are outlined in the bill. It is a structure which I submit, Mr. Speaker, will give much greater flexibility to the board in dealing with the problems that come before it.

Before outlining the reforms made to the board in its physical composition, I think it is important to emphasize that both labour and management have in the past called for a complete overhaul of the structure and procedures of the Labour Relations Board.

This was one of the areas where there was indeed complete unanimity — at least a good degree of consensus in all sectors on the need for a changed Labour Relations Board. So, in response to those appeals by labour and management, the main practitioners of industrial relations, we have set out to develop a board with a new look.

Under the new code, the board is independent; I think that's the first point that has to be made. It is completely independent, not only in fact but in appearance. Under section 26 of the new code, the chairman is granted legislative tenure for five years and he can only be removed by address of the Legislative Assembly. So this secures the position of the chairman of the new board as independent and not susceptible to any political pressures that might otherwise be the case.

The structure of the board, I submit further, is an impartial one. It grants and provides that people with legislative tenure will govern the affairs of the board. The executive officers of the board give a balanced view, I think, to the independence and the structure of the board.

It is a flexible tribunal and I think flexibility is absolutely essential in the area of industrial relations. No two labour disputes are the same, and this element of flexibility in the new board, which will allow the board to sit in separate panels to hear disputes or representations that are made to them, will ensure that not only does the board have flexibility, but it also has the ability to act quickly in response to applications that come before it.

It will be capable of providing clearer decisions by assuming a variety of structures, in other words. Pursuant to section 13, for example, panels with the vice-chairman and representatives from management and labour may be established to hear matters coming before the board. And three panels of the board can be struck simultaneously, which would allow for the board to deal simultaneously with disputes in various sections of the province.

The varied capability of the board will speed up the processing of certifications and unfair labour practices. This has been one of the criticisms in the past, that the previous board could not act quickly enough on sensitive matters.

The new structure will ensure that labour problems are dealt with by those who understand the facts. Representative members bring to the panel people who are intimately familiar with both sides of labour problems. They provide the special expertise necessary for the administration of labour relations.

There is a provision in the new legislation for appeals from board decisions, and the structure of the board is designed to give a meaningful appeal to the parties affected by board decisions.

Because of the hierarchy of panels, section 36 means that decisions made by a panel may be reviewed before the full board tribunal, so that if anyone objects to a three-man panel bringing down a decision which adversely affects them, or in their minds adversely affects them, then they can come before the entire Labour Relations Board for an appeal against that decision. The appeal provided by section 36 is not therefore merely a rehearing by the

[ Page 397 ]

same people, which was the case under the old statute, under section 65(3). This new appeal, I think, is a good, meaningful arrangement that will guarantee a rehearing by a more representative body.

Allowing for a special appeal to an administrative agency, as provided in the labour code, is an important innovation in Canadian law, really. It is a recognition of the unsuitability of review in the courts of administrative decisions by prerogative writs, such as a certiorari et cetera, where the issue of jurisdiction and not the substance of a decision is considered.

The dynamics of labour relations defy the strictures of the ancient prerogative writs of the courts, writs originated to meet very different problems from those which are faced today in labour relations. An administrative appeal like section 36 allows the justice and merit of the decision to be considered, as well as strictly the legal correctness.

On the subject of appeals from board decisions, it is important to understand that the new role of the board is bolstered by an ombudsman who will be able to examine and consider decisions of the board. He will not have the power to alter those decisions, but he certainly will have the power to zero in on the decisions that are handed down by the board and consider the complaints of those people affected by such decisions. He will have the right to hear evidence and make recommendations for change to the procedures or the legislative strictures of the board.

He will have the power, further, to publicize his findings so that the focus of public attention can be directed to any alleged improprieties of use of powers, or indeed unjust decisions that the board will hand down. And he can recommend that decisions of the board may be varied or even cancelled, so that he will be a fairly potent advocate for parties who may feel that they are injuriously affected by decisions of the board.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Can he cancel?

HON. MR. KING: No, he cannot cancel; he can recommend variations.

So the ombudsman, I submit, provides another check and balance against any abuse of powers that could otherwise be undertaken by the Labour Relations Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Wailing Wall.

HON. MR. KING: The focus of public attention will always be zeroed in on decisions that are objected to by the board, Another point that I think is worth mentioning in the new board's structure is its accessibility to the public, not only because of the ability to form into more than one panel and hear problems and submissions in various parts of the province, but also because of the location of the new board. The headquarters of the board will be in Vancouver, as provided in section 22 of the Act, the centre where really the hub of industrial relations exists in the province. So access to the board will be readily available to the main practitioners of industrial relations in the province.

Access to the services of the board will be further improved by the fact that the majority of the members of the board will be permanent appointees. In other words the members, the people who comprise the board, will be full-time people who are not distracted from their duties by having to attend to other obligations. It will be full-time, it will be available to the parties to industrial relations in a way that perhaps the previous board was not able to make itself available.

It is not required that the board or a panel must give reasons for its decisions in each case but it is anticipated, as a result of the new structure, and as a result of the selection of personnel of this new board, that it will in fact, wherever possible, give reasons for the decisions that it hands down. This also, I might add, was one of the criticisms of the previous board's structure, the fact that very few reasons were given for the adjudications which they handed down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. KING: Under the new system it is anticipated that reasons will be given, certainly wherever possible.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Nothing in the bill says that.

HON. MR. KING: The result, I think, will be an improvement in the public acceptance under those circumstances of decisions of the board.

MR. CHABOT: Same thing.

HON. MR. KING: This is one of the reasons, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is advisable to have on the board people who have legal training and who can give the basis of reasons for the decision without jeopardizing the decision to court actions which could emasculate the board's effectiveness to come to grips with labour problems. That certainly was the problem in the past.

I think a further aid for those seeking to understand the procedure — I am thinking of the Labour Relations Board — is found in section 27, which allows the board to establish policies of the rules, of its own rules, for the guidance of the public.

In summary, the structure of the Labour Relations Board is independent and impartial. It is flexible with special labour relations expertise contained on the

[ Page 398 ]

panel. It provides for an internal appeal which is broader in nature than that contained under the previous arrangement. It increases public access and improves public acceptance of that type of tribunal.

The primary function of the new labour code is to secure industrial peace in the province. To accomplish this purpose, the board is given comprehensive jurisdiction over all aspects of labour relations, and it will be involved in the total picture and recognize, in other words, the inter-relation of problems, beginning with the formation of unions, unfair labour practices, certifications, bargaining in good faith, picketing, strikes and lockouts on first collective agreements right through to technological changes and so on.

So the new board will be dealing with the whole scope and sphere of the issues which create problems in industrial relations.

The board will have the great advantage of being able to deal with the root causes of labour problems; it will not merely be a court by another name, The board's jurisdiction will extend beyond the legalities of a dispute and allow for consideration of the motivations of the people involved. In other words, it won't be dealing in a strictly legalistic sense as the courts have done in the past. It will be looking at the issues with a view to curative approaches rather than punitive approaches.

An example of the board's remedial power is contained in section 97, which allows the board to take action where a dispute arises because of a delay in arbitration proceedings. The section states that:

"Where a difference arises during the term of a collective agreement, and delay, in the opinion of the board, has occurred in settling the difference, the board may, on the application of either party to the difference, or on its own motion, inquire into the difference, and make recommendations for settlement and, where the difference is arbitrable, order that it be immediately submitted to a specific stage or step in the grievance procedure provided under the collective agreement; or, whether the difference is arbitrable or not, request the Minister to appoint a special officer."

Now in the past, anyone who is knowledgeable and has had any experience in labour problems in this province will recognize that one of the greatest and most sensitive problem areas has been disputes arising during the course of collective agreements. It's manifested through job actions, work-to-rule programmes, work stoppages, wildcat strikes, and so on. There have been inequities and there have been reasons why the working people of this province have been moved to employ those tactics to solve their problems.

One of those reasons I've just outlined was an ineffective arbitration procedure contained in collective agreements. Another device was the deliberate attempt by one party or the other to delay arbitration proceedings so that the problem festered on and created animosity and hostility until inevitably it erupted into a work stoppage. At that point the government was called upon to come in and try to pick up the pieces.

This allows the board to become involved at an earlier stage and to offer aids that will pre-empt the necessity for taking this kind of guerilla action and inflaming the whole industrial climate of the province.

Section 97 provides the board with power to recommend solutions to a labour dispute or to refer the problem to arbitration or to a special officer.

MR. CHABOT: Received your copy yet?

HON. MR. KING: It should be in your bill book, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I just wanted another copy.

HON. MR. KING: I'm sure if you go through the bills on your desk, you'll probably find that bill there. It's under No. 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, 11. Seven come eleven?

HON. MR. KING: I note that the Member seems to be as familiar with this statute as he was with the preceding statute.

MR. CHABOT: King of the unions.

HON. MR. KING: This section provides the use of a special officer which is a new device. This is a new concept and I think it's one that holds great promise. It's not going to solve all problems but it's an attempt to find a new approach to the problems of disputes that arise during the currency of a collective agreement.

The board's power under this section could be very helpful and I think the board can exercise its jurisdiction over the law of strikes, lockouts and picketing in a far more effective, realistic way than the courts were ever empowered to do.

A careful examination of the legislation I think will reveal the Labour Relations Board has no punitive powers as such, so any suggestion that the board has all-empowering, all-encompassing powers, undue powers, or has in any way usurped the functions of the courts is not valid. This is an administrative tribunal; it has no powers as such to inflict or enforce penalties. That exercise is retained for the courts. But it does allow the board to deal with the issue and the cause before the dispute ever arises in the courts, should that be necessary.

The board's powers are conciliatory and remedial. The intent of the law is for the board to prevent

[ Page 399 ]

disputes, not punish the disputers. Therefore, I think, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that the board has too much power is completely unfounded and I think the powers that it does have will be exercised in a responsible way and reveal themselves as very helpful devices in the time to come.

The concern expressed that the board's powers are too awesome fails to recognize the nature of the board's functions. The most humble magistrate has far greater power to affect individuals than the board does. As I pointed out before, Mr. Speaker, nowhere in the Act is the board empowered to administer sanctions as such; they simply have a number of devices that they can make in an administrative way. The responsibility for applying any sanctions still rests with the courts.

The board must seek the resolutions of labour problems through means other than coercion. Even a cease and desist order issued by the board is not self-enforcing but is enforceable only by the ordinary courts. This is very significant, I think, and it underscores the fact that the board is not a court. The board is an administrative agency without court-like powers, and that's important to recognize and it's important to emphasize.

The removal of injunctions from the courts is provided in section 31 and did not place the injunction power in the hands of the board. Rather, the new law intends that economic conflict between labour and management will be treated in a different manner all together.

To better appreciate the change in philosophy of the new code, reference could be made to labour law in the United Kingdom prior to 1972. In that country, the law did not attempt to regulate strikes and lockouts. In the United Kingdom, the collective agreement does not have the legislative sanctity that it has in Canadian law; a collective agreement was not even an enforceable contract under the British law.

So therefore, the approach' of the new code we have, while not opting for a complete abdication of the law as it respects labour disputes, does recognize the need for a less strictly legal approach to the problem, and this is exactly what we are trying to accomplish.

In effect, the code strikes a compromise between the United Kingdom position and the former position of excessive legal intervention into the industrial relations scene in this province. It must be understood that while the Labour Relations Board is very important, it is not the heart of the new labour code. Rather, the essence of the code is only ancillary and incidental to this fundamental process. The board only functions to provide the administrative machinery for successful collective bargaining.

The new Act accomplishes a number of things and the board administers them by protecting the right of employees to join a union through enforcement of unfair labour practices, contained in section 3 and section 8. Upon evidence of the majority will, the board has power to certify the trade union as bargaining agent on behalf of all employees in an appropriate unit.

The effect of certification is that the bargaining agent, in the person of a trade union, has exclusive authority to bargain collectively and bind all employees to a collective agreement. Certification, then, is only one of the functions of the board. It's only the beginning, really, of the collective bargaining process and the board is involved in that.

Certification is really the threshold step of the collective bargaining process; it opens the door to collective bargaining. The obligation to bargain set out in section 63 in Part IV is the very keystone of the Act. The law contemplates that if collective bargaining is characterized by good faith and reason, the parties will succeed in negotiating and executing a collective agreement.

The right to strike, lockout and picket, as outlined in Part V are the measures provided to ultimately resolve collective bargaining — which are conflicts.

The paradoxical situation then is that collective bargaining is the ability to resolve, conflict by conflict. This is the purpose of the economic weapons which the parties hold: the right to lock out and the right to strike.

Because the board plays such a useful role during the certification attempts of bargaining units at the inception of the collective bargaining process, it is logical that the board should continue to have some role to play in the collective bargaining per se, and in the administration of the laws of strikes and lockouts.

The board will have the ability and the knowledge to relate problems arising during the course of bargaining to the pre-certification experience that it has had with the parties involved. In other words, because strikes, lockouts and picketing are, like certification, only a part of the collective bargaining process, it is therefore appropriate that the same administrative agency regulates all of these matters.

The controlling force, or organizing idea then, is the principle of collective bargaining. I would remind this House, Mr. Speaker, that this is a principle that I think all political parties pay lip service to. Certainly the trade union movements and the business world tell us that it is the best, most fair way of resolving their problems. So what we're doing is directing our attention to trying to make that process work more effectively in a less disruptive manner to the economy and the public at large.

The controlling force, or organizing idea then, is the principle of collective bargaining. The Labour Relations Board is the agency vested with the major responsibility for the collective bargaining process. The board has the structure and the personnel to understand the dynamics of industrial relations.

[ Page 400 ]

Therefore, it is essential that the board be given comprehensive jurisdiction over the whole process.

The courts of law can only really catch a glimpse of the overall labour picture. Their interference in the past has been sporadic and fortuitous. The judges lack the intimate knowledge of the very dynamic process of industrial relations and collective bargaining. For these reasons, Part II of the new labour code has removed the courts' jurisdiction over labour disputes. This does not substitute the board, but rather proposes a new approach. The new law seeks an administrative rather than a judicial solution to labour disputes.

In summary then, the primary function of the Labour Relations Board is to make the collective bargaining process work more successfully. The purpose is accompanied by allowing the board to become involved in the total process from the point of applications for certification right through to strikes. It is a comprehensive approach to a comprehensive problem.

The new labour code has streamlined and improved the structure and machinery of the Labour Relations Board. The new board will, I predict, be better equipped to assist those engaged in collective bargaining to achieve harmonious relations and will, ultimately, benefit all the citizens of this province.

I've given an outline, Mr. Speaker, of the central agency that will hold responsibility for making this new labour code work. I think it's necessary at the same time to say that attitudes towards this new legislation are going to be all-important in the degree of success which is realized from our new approach.

As I mentioned in the throne speech debate, I would like to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly welcome close scrutiny of this bill. I welcome criticism, if it's constructive. But I want to suggest to you that this problem is so sensitive and has been so profound over the past number of years that I think it is extremely essential, it's incumbent upon everyone to approach it with a temperate, rational, constructive approach.

Now I have said publicly in the past and I have said on many occasions, to labour and to management, that this bill is not offered as a blueprint to which you're going to be tied for time immemorial. It is simply our attempt to translate into legislative language many of the recommendations which you people have brought to us and maintain a fair balance of economic power between the parties, because this is essential to fair and effective collective bargaining, too.

But at the same time, we are quite prepared to maintain continuing consultation with both labour and management. We are quite prepared to keep a very close eye on all aspects of this legislation over the next period of months and years. And if anyone can come to this government and demonstrate that any section of that legislation is having an iniquitous effect and an injurious effect on them, which is unjust and unnecessary, then certainly I remain receptive, and I'm sure the government remains receptive, to amending the legislation accordingly.

But having said that, I think that the parties involved have an obligation to approach this legislation in a spirit of cooperation, and to give their best efforts and demonstrate their responsibility in a first-class effort to make this legislation work. That can only be done with the good faith of the parties involved. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister, just a few moments ago, stated that the cornerstone of the legislation is the words "bargaining in good faith." Now it's really important, if this is that important, this bargaining in good faith, that it's not instituted in the interpretation of the Act, because I'm sure that the Minister will agree with me that there is a great variety of definitions of the meaning of "bargaining in good faith." I would venture to say, if each and every member of the 10-man board were asked to issue his opinion of what bargaining in good faith might mean, that you would find a sharp contrast in their attitudes as to what the words might mean.

The legislation we are presently discussing, the Labour Code Act of British Columbia is wide-ranging. It is legislation which has 153 sections. It's legislation, I'm sure the Minister will agree, that enhances the growth of the labour movement in British Columbia.

I want to say, and I firmly believe, that it is a genuine attempt on the part of the government to resolve some of the problems that we're faced with in the employee-employer relationship in this province.

There has been established a 10-man board, four men have been appointed now and six will be appointed later. The Minister suggested that it was flexible, and I must agree that their terms of reference or their ability to determine or regulate a problem is certainly flexible. They have some mighty powers in their ability to use that flexibility dealing with the question of industrial relations in the province.

There is also the question of a special officer, who will be appointed to deal with grievances and matters that create illegal disruptions in the province. And he is given some awesome powers. I don't know just how you'll find a man sufficiently capable to adjudicate the problems and make the recommendations, binding as they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Binding only for 30 days.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, that's binding for 30 days, and it can be in conflict with the terms of the collective agreement for a 30-day period. Now these are broad powers.

[ Page 401 ]

Someone suggested not too long ago, in fact yesterday, that the Minister has someone posted down at Swartz Bay waiting to appoint the first guy who's walked across water. I almost believe that he must not only walk across from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay, he should be able to go back too, to be able to fulfill the role of special officer under this legislation.

We in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, live in a buoyant, resource-oriented economy. We don't have a dual economy in this province. Therefore, when an economy is as dependent upon primary resources as ours is, we find that the matter of conflict between labour and management does create wide economic ramifications.

We had a prime example of that just last year when we had the work stoppages in the forest industry and in the construction industry. We found that almost 10 per cent of our labour force was out on strike in 1972, so it has extreme ramifications in a province such as British Columbia, which is so dependent upon its primary industries and does not have a dual economy, i.e., the mixture of primary and secondary industries.

What we really need in British Columbia is legislation that will reduce the incidence of conflict. I wonder whether this legislation will resolve the conflicts that we have been accustomed to.

I must say that the success or failure of this legislation depends upon its acceptance or rejection by labour and management. Labour legislation really must, in effect, reflect a balance of power between the two groups: labour and management.

This legislation at the outset — I haven't had too much time to examine it — appears to be weighted in favour of the unions. But it does establish the legal framework, I hope, that will bring about peaceful relations between labour and management.

I think that the administration by the 10-man board and the powers that are conferred upon them will have quite an impact on whether the legislation will function or fail, and whether the future holds less conflict between labour and management in our province.

I firmly believe that industrial tension must be reduced in British Columbia. I must say that industrial tension can not only be reduced by legislation; there must be consideration and a genuine attempt on the part of labour and management to make legislation work. Also, legislation must preserve and reflect the dignity of the two parties for it to function properly.

What we are discussing is complex and far-reaching legislation. One Minister, and I am not going to say which Minister, said that the legislation was hastily prepared in order to be brought into the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. CHABOT: The bill has been here for about 40 to 42 hours; it appears there is anxiety for the legislation to be rushed through.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourn it.

MR. CHABOT: I think that….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourn the debate. You're free to adjourn the debate. Do you wish to adjourn the debate?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I do. I will, but just a moment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, well! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: But I want to….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't have it both ways. If you want to adjourn it, adjourn it.

MR. CHABOT: I've started some comments about this legislation. I want to say that I think it's only fair that the public have an opportunity to express their views towards this legislation. I think that there has been a tremendous amount of input on the part of labour and management that brought about what we see in Bill 11 at this moment. However, I would say that both sides, labour and management, were not aware what the legislation would be. I think that they should now be given the opportunity to examine the legislation, and again too, express their views, their anxieties. I think that the legislation should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour…

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: …so that there can be this additional consideration of the anxieties…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who told you to say that?

MR.CHABOT: …on the part of labour, and the anxieties on the part of management. If the government really believes….

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister can laugh all he wants, be as cynical as he likes, Mr. Speaker. But I think that in all fairness, if he really genuinely wants this legislation to work, he should give these people an opportunity, now that the legislation has been drafted, to express their opinions on the matter.

I will be moving to that effect, that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

[ Page 402 ]

Labour. Because it is a far-reaching bill with some wide ramifications, If you really believe in open government, and if you really want to see this bill work, then you will refer it to the Select Standing…. Mr. Speaker, will you tell that Minister over there to stop interrupting when he is out of his seat?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ah!

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member please interrupt from his seat? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: It's better than being out of your….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker is being his usual political self.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: You suggested, Mr. Speaker, that I be interrupted by a Member from his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Now if that's not political, I don't know what political is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I just protected you from him, and this is my thanks. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: You suggested he go back to his seat.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That will teach you to interfere.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, from now on perhaps I shouldn't interrupt. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: There are a lot of matters to be further discussed with this bill. The Premier has agreed himself that it was hastily present ed to the House, that the Members should have an opportunity to further study the ramifications of the bill. He suggests that we move adjournment of the debate.

Therefore I do move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Corporation Capital Tax Act, passed at the spring session, imposed a tax on capital being utilized in the province by corporations. It has now come to our attention that there are a few corporations to which the tax does not apply, which were not intended to be exempt at the time the Act was passed, because they do not have any capital shares. To correct this, the definition of "corporation" is amended to specifically include insurance companies or Crown corporations, with or without share capital.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we took the position last year that this is an unnecessary discrimination against business and we still hold that view. However, neither do we support discrimination in reverse, and in the matter of fair play we support this tax…(laughter)…levying as it does a tax against Crown corporations, on the simple premise that Crown corporations should have no special advantages. On that point alone, we would support this bill on second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Corporation Tax Act.

Bill 21 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN SETTLEMENT ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the operations of the British Columbia Railway Company have expanded greatly over the past few years. In line with this growth this bill proposes an increase in the number of board directors from the present five to a maximum of nine.

It is felt that the expanded railway operation needs additional direction and scrutiny from the board of directors. This can best be provided by the appointment of more directors from various fields related to the business of the railway.

Mr. Speaker, I announced at a speech in the City of Vancouver that it was not the intention of this government to replace private capitalism with state capitalism. I think both in their absolute sense are

[ Page 403 ]

totally dehumanizing and not the objective of any democratic society.

The experiment with democratizing the boards of Crown agencies will begin with this particular bill. It is the intention of the government to ask the people who work on the railroad, in a form that is not yet decided, to have representation on the board of directors. Also it is the intention of the government to include representatives of the largest customer, that is the forest industry, on the board as well.

The railway belongs to all the people of the Province of British Columbia. The government of the day is elected to govern on behalf of the people. Beyond that, in operating Crown corporations, we feel that it is essential to development for the mature growth of any jurisdiction to have people directly involved in their Crown corporation. We argued this in the past while in opposition and we are now going ahead with this policy while in government.

I am hopeful that this new direction, as it develops, will give an increased sense of responsibility and participation, not only to the total community, but . specifically to industry and the trade union movement. We either all work together or we'll perish together. This bill is a demonstration of the government's intent to incorporate people who are directly involved in a government agency in the decision-making process related to that government agency. I ask the House to support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): We want to assure the Premier and the government that we are going to heartily support this bill. We think that it holds promise of achieving even more than the Premier has suggested. I don't disagree one bit with anything he said in favour of the bill — the desirability of democratizing our Crown corporations to bring to the board of directors those groups whose interests are vitally affected by the way in which the railroad is run.

But, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier didn't adequately emphasize, in my view, is that there is a traditional role of a board of directors in any corporation, a role which has manifestly not been satisfied by the British Columbia Railway. The confidential documents which the Premier was good enough to release to the House completely vindicated the stand that I have been taking over a number of years regarding the necessity for accountability of corporations, whether they be private corporations or Crown corporations.

There is a mechanism by which private corporations are accountable. This is the annual meeting of the shareholders. I am still hopeful that one of the things this new board of directors will do when they are appointed is to regularize this principle of the annual public meeting. And while the Premier is the only shareholder and will himself be on the board of directors, there is no reason why he couldn't have an annual meeting for himself.

I was curious and I went back and read the PGE Act and tried to find out when its annual meeting was. Of course, the government and their fiscal agent are the only single shareholder. I asked the Premier last session when the annual meeting had been held and whether he had attended it and he wasn't quite sure whether he had been at the annual meeting or not.

But the point about it is that that system of accountability has been totally absent for all these years in the British Columbia Railway. Because of that and because of the inadequacy of the members of the board of directors, who were there for reasons of politics…and not railroad experience or the experience of the people who were vitally affected by that railroad's decisions. Those were the people who were on the board of directors and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they did a lousy job.

The method of letting contracts, the accounting procedures, the way decisions were reached for development, would have been a disgrace to a private corporation, much less a Crown agency. During all this time, when speeches were being made by the former president of the B.C. Railway in this House about what a magnificent railway it was, all the jobs it had been doing for British Columbia, how well it was run and how handsome the profit picture was and so on and so on, all those statements were accepted without question by the press, who played along with the former Premier in letting the public know a story which was not true with regard to that railroad, and which has only been brought out by the new Premier.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is still important that we find a process of accountability in this province for those corporations which are run by the government as well as the public. I say this with the deepest of sincerity because the government is moving more and more into the field of business of all kinds — planer mill, pulp mill, newsprint plant, railroad, electric company, buses, natural gas — going into that in a big way — hospitals, hotels…

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Legislation.

MR. McGEER: …insurance, ferries. Somebody suggested they should take over the waxworks; move the whole Liberal party in there. (Laughter.)

But, Mr. Speaker, all of those Crown corporations, if there is no method of accountability, will be subject to the same kinds of abuses that were tolerated for so many years with the B.C. Railway, where the only word which was given was that of the Premier — a political word, which was faithfully

[ Page 404 ]

communicated to the general public, to their disadvantage, by the media. And the media will always report what the Premier says.

Therefore, unless these firm methods of accountability are institutionalized, then the public has no protection at all from the media. And so there have to be systems.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): What we need is protection from you.

MR. McGEER: Well, there are many ways for protecting against the Liberals. But there are so few of us, I think we should be a protected species. (Laughter.) Like the buffalo.

I think that Member is taking a very cruel position. Pretty soon it will be Social Credit that will be fewer than the Liberals. You are going down fast.

Regardless of political party, what is required here is a method by which the public can have their interests protected as far as the Crown agencies are concerned. You know, if you had to depend on the opposition, that is a very thin reed, Mr. Speaker — a very thin reed. I think that the example of the British Columbia Railway should give sober thoughts both to the government and to the public, and that we give appropriate consideration to establishing a strong board of directors — in the business sense as well as the democratic sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, the present directorship of the B.C. Hydro is weak. It badly needs strengthening. Ever since the appointment of a new chairman and his favourite Minister, we have had a little closed group in the B.C. Hydro which is very, very reminiscent of the old days of the B.C. Railway. The grip of that little socialist clique needs to be broken so that the B.C. Hydro, as well as the B.C. Railway, has adequate people representing the public and business interests on its board of directors.

So, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this legislation. We throw in this one additional requirement of accountability and we hope the Premier in his appointments will give due consideration to this. But not just for the B.C. Railway and the B.C. Hydro, but the many, many corporations which the government is now founding, that we will have a system that will be a model for private enterprise as well as the general public.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, we've heard the Hon. Member ask for an increase in the board, and suggesting that there might be considerable changes if we changed the board from five to nine. But it seems to me that this government wants to make the rules, wants to play in the games, and they also want to be the referee. Frankly, we can't see any justification for adding four more people to the board in any way, shape or form as giving accountability as you asked for. It is simply just placing four more jobs for the party faithful, and frankly we will oppose it.

MR. WALLACE: This party will support the bill. And I always enjoy the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I say this with the greatest respect when I say that I've heard that speech several times during each session of the House….

MR. McGEER: I'm not getting anywhere.

MR. WALLACE: No, I disagree with the Member. I think he is getting somewhere. He interjects that even though he makes the speech every session, he's not getting anywhere. I have the feeling that he is. We've already had evidence of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) seeking to inquire into the methods of accounting and bookkeeping of Crown corporations and these reports were made available to us and to the public.

I couldn't agree more with the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that the image of Crown corporations such as the British Columbia Railway, or the PGE as it was known in the Socred days, need to be brightened by not only the appearance of realistic public representation but by some evidence of good faith by the government of this province that indeed when it talks about open government it means open government. And this, in turn, means making all the affairs of Crown corporations, particularly their financial arrangements, readily open to public scrutiny.

The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has also made the same point on almost as many occasions as his colleague, I would think. The only reservation I would make in supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that all it doesis to increase the number from five to nine. Although the Premier has stated that he will be seeking representation on the board from the public and from the main user of the service, namely the forest industry, again I wonder why, when we are debating bills, we should not have the specific details of the bill in the bill, and why we should need press releases or statements, or some information or data which could readily be incorporated in the bill, the principle at least.

I am not suggesting to the Premier that we have to know specifically the numbers or the particular section of the forest industry, or the particular kind of public representation there would be. But surely in general terms — and I might say as an aside that the

[ Page 405 ]

government has already demonstrated just how general their terms can be in certain other bills in this House. I would just feel much happier if the principle of public representation and consumer involvement in the board had been included in this bill.

I strongly support the concept which has been amplified by the Premier in introducing the bill. I hope, if only for self-protection, that he will accept the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey's recommendations. I just feel the time must come when we mustn't have that speech even once more, and I don't know why the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is complaining about his small numbers. He's got no problem at all at two-and-a-half times our strength.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's only in quantity.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway we've got…. I don't know about the 7-3-1 plan, but this 10-5-2 plan doesn't appeal to me very much either, But, Mr. Speaker, although we have lots of time this session because we haven't got too many bills to debate, I don't propose to waste any time. I just want to say that the principle is sound. I would have enjoyed a little more detail in the bill, but this party certainly strongly supports it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to echo the words of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and point out that we do feel that in very many areas there is a need for more openness. Certainly we've been arguing along those lines now for one special session and two regular sessions of the House.

I'm glad the Hon. Member for Oak Bay mentioned that famous 7-3-1 plan. Now all three other parties in the House have talked about it, the Premier, the opposition…the Premier talked about it two days in a row. It is clearly causing a great deal of concern and we are very pleased and flattered by this.

The point that wasn't mentioned — I see the Premier quickly reaches for his microphone when it is mentioned, great. The point that wasn't taken up by the Premier, or I should say by the President of B.C. Rail, in his introduction of this bill was the timetable for his own departure from that exalted office. He has mentioned on a number of occasions that he would be stepping down at a certain time. Originally it was linked to a takeover by the Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who, I understand, was to replace him as president of B.C. Rail and, of course, on the board. This wasn't mentioned today and I feel it was an oversight that perhaps the president of B.C. Rail would like to cover when he rises to speak to close the debate.

First it was to be the Minister of Communications. Then we had the ferry strike handled by the Minister of Communications — not exactly a resounding success. Immediately after that we had the statement that the Premier would hold onto the portfolio for certainly substantially longer than I had expected in the light of his previous statements. I'd like to know, and perhaps he might indicate when he rises to speak, how long he expects this to be and what other reforms, which he was talking about a couple of weeks ago, he has in mind he feels that only he himself can put through prior to handing over to another person as president of B.C. Rail.

I don't want to belabour the point, but we have often mentioned that the Premier is not only overweight but overworked and we feel that he should not have the four essential jobs of House Leader, Premier, President of B.C. Rail and Minister of Finance. They are a substantial….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps if he had more time, Mr. Member for Oak Bay, the Hon. doctor from Oak Bay, he'd be able to take more exercise and both problems would be solved. He'd be able to play rugby perhaps in Japan or elsewhere even, But what I am suggesting is that there should be a full-time head of B.C. Rail. It is a big organization, not a small one. The Premier has indicated there are many points of view that are going to have to be put on the board of directors. In fact by this very bill I think he indicates the fact that the job is getting greater and greater for the president as well as for the board of directors.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly it is.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's good. Yes. I'm glad the Premier agrees, and it makes sense that this is the case.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Didn't you read the Minty report?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've been reading all sorts of reports on B.C. Rail.

So we would expect some indication from him of when he intends to step down; what are the changes he wants prior to stepping down; and why it is indeed that only he in the chair as president can manage to handle those changes.

I'd like at this stage, Mr. Speaker, to say that I appreciated that repeat speech by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). Over the years he's been really the only watchdog of B.C. Rail and the other Crown corporations — the most effective one, in any event. I trust, as was said earlier, that he won't have to constantly repeat it.

The point was made that in amendments such as

[ Page 406 ]

this, if we do intend to bring in some changes to the composition of the board, it is quite possible to write such things into legislation, and our arguments yesterday to the effect that legislation should be specific would, of course, apply today as well.

It is a disappointment, for example, that we don't have in here a subsection to the effect that of these four new members of the board, one shall be a representative of the employees of the railroad concerned, and another shall be a representative of the forest industry who are users of the railroad facilities.

It would be perfectly possible to write in, but perhaps in the light of yesterday's experience this seems simply another small indication of the fact that our legislation is extremely vague in the province and there is no attempt really being made to make it more specific and more precise so that we can, in turn, discuss the legislation rather than an intention of a Minister to carry out certain plans under the legislation which, of course, he has no commitment, no real commitment to do or not to do in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we trust that this bill will be followed by others. We trust as well that we will have in legislation of this nature, a great deal more that is specific.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I have no intention really of entering into the debate on this particular bill; we've stated our position. But I really am forced on my feet by the remarks of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) when he talks about letting in the light of day and his attitude towards past management of one of the greatest railroads in the free world.

If you have not heard that first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey make this renowned speech several times before in this House, why, you might be like some of the newer Members in the House that buy this. I don't buy it. I think the British Columbia Railway has done a fantastic job and I think the past directors, the board and management of the British Columbia Railway have done a fantastic job.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that the bureaucracy that has been built up around the publicly-owned Canadian National Railway has not really let in very much light on the operation of that people's railway. So it really gets to me when I hear the Member for Point Grey, who was so disappointed when the report came down and he couldn't come into this House and say: "I told you so! There's been mismanagement of the British Columbia Railway."

I honestly think that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey was gravely disappointed, because he made a big to-do in the House last spring about the mismanagement of the contracts and so forth on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. I tell you, I'd like to see some checking into the running of the Canadian National Railway. The bureaucracy there is so big and and so heavy that you couldn't get through it with a Sherman tank. I certainly wouldn't want to see the same thing happen to our great railway here in British Columbia. I think it's been an open railway, and you can have all the checking into the operation of it that you want.

The Member said it hasn't had a good image. It maybe hasn't had a good image, Mr. Speaker, in the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey's mind, but if you go out into the area that that railway is serving, out into northern British Columbia, you will find that the British Columbia Railway has a very good image.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They don't know where northern British Columbia is.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe because it doesn't run through Point Grey, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey thinks that the railway has a poor image. Now everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon. The British Columbia Railway, when it was taken over by the previous administration, was on the way downhill. It was built up, you know, Mr. Speaker, into one of the greatest railways in the free world. Now everybody wants to jump onto the bandwagon. It has more miles of road under construction this year than any railroad in the free world.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if these new directors that this government is going to put on this railway are going to help in dealing with Ottawa to get some of the money that is owed by Ottawa for the construction of 300 miles of British Columbia Railway in the Peace River area, into Dease Lake. I think that before we add any more directors on this railway we should be told by the Premier how these directors are going to help the financial status of the British Columbia Railway.

You can wind your arms around all you want! You provoked this! (Laughter.) I didn't intend to say anything about it. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That'll teach you!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the bill. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) stands up and says he hopes there will be more openings in the operation of the British Columbia Railway. I want to stand on the floor of this Legislature — and I'm proud to do so — and say that I am glad that the past directors of the British Columbia Railway had the vision that they had to build that railway north into the Peace River country and to build the railway north into that land

[ Page 407 ]

behind the Alaska panhandle, which has more known resources and minerals than anywhere in the world.

I'm glad that those men had that vision. I'm glad that those past directors, Mr. Speaker, had the courage of their convictions to go ahead and build the extension of that railway. I'm glad, Mr. Speaker, that those men had the business sense to carry it out, and I certainly can't see that adding four more directors is really going to help the operation of the British Columbia Railway that much.

Maybe if the Premier, in closing the debate, can tell me that some of these directors are going to spend some more time down in Ottawa trying to get from Ottawa what is justly due to the people of British Columbia, then I'll rethink about how I'm going to vote on the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, first of all let me say I'm glad you're glad. I must confess that I have two speeches to give instead of one in winding up this bill. The first one is very political and the second one may have political overtones.

I have always believed in the philosophy that you must always forgive but you never forget. If you don't remember what went on in terms of your own experience and your sum total of experiences, then you're condemned to relive mistakes of others.

For the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), with no previous experience in this House — not even in the gallery — to come into this House and suggest that party hacks are going on the board after I've already said as the Premier of this province that there would be someone from forestry and from labour is downright, plain stupid!

You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a former member of that board who was the biggest political hack ever spawned in this province and his name was Einar Gunderson, a self-confessed bagman for the Social Credit Party with all the aura of political ooze and grease and grime and filth that goes around that kind of bagman role. He was their freedom fighter at the ballot box and at the cash register. He was a self-confessed bagman who hacked, who cut, who thrust his way through every business structure in this province for dollars for that rotten political machine that used to run this province! That Member has the nerve, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that that board was free from politics in the past — claptrap!

AN HON. MEMBER: What! what!

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of trap?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There are businessmen, as that Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) pointed out so rightly in election campaigns, who were cowed into giving funds to the Social Credit party by that same Mr. Gunderson who sat on the board of the railroad.

So, Mr. Member, don't come in here and start giving those sanctimonious comments when you haven't had any experience, which is the only saving grace you've got for being in that party, because I'm sure there is a spark or some semblance of honest perception within you that if you had had the experience sitting in this House with the former administration, you might have left them. Mercifully you're spared from that experience, but it would do you well to read some history of what went on in this very chamber before you arrived, before you make comments like that.

As for the Member for Peace River — did you ever go to a board meeting? You were lucky to even speak to the cabinet. They never knew your name when you were in this House. You used to be part of the seven safe Socred seats from the north. And then you come in here and try and tell us "Whoa! Bleagh! Whaaugh!" or whatever it is you do. (Laughter.) It's incredible, absolutely incredible!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you…! You didn't build it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: See what I mean, Mr. Speaker? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I would point out that in perusing various decisions of Speakers the use of the word "stupid" towards another Member is certainly unparliamentary, and I ask the Hon. Premier to withdraw it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw the remark.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is it that really cuts, Mr. Speaker? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will withdraw the remark.

MR. PHILLIPS: You belong to the art of a clown!

MR. SPEAKER: That also is unparliamentary.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill has been spelled out. We are managing a multi-million dollar railway which, according to the report filed by the comptroller, was run in a pioneer fashion, which I thought was a very charitable

[ Page 408 ]

adjective to describe that particular method of operation. That railroad needs the best possible advice it can get. No person, no matter what his personal experience is in business or in the world, can possibly have all of the ideas or all of the notions that will serve an enterprise best.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to go directly to the heart of the area of those who are being served and to those who are asked to do service on the railroad.

The railroad has had many serious problems that relate to the fact that it was operated in a pioneer fashion. And with all due respect, Ottawa did not cooperate to a great extent with the BCR.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did you make a profit last year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: When you examine the books — as I hope public accounts will in the next session, along with the task of the public accounts in terms of tender — you can make the books appear as if the railroad's making a great profit when in fact it isn't.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you suggesting that the auditors are crooked?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, I'm not suggesting that the auditors are crooked. But there are things you can write down as capital expenditures and write off by issuing more shares, which your former government used to do by ramming those kinds of bills through the House. They're a method of expanding capital. We came in this House and we….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we didn't because we wanted the railroad to expand. But I think you must be absolutely honest and understand that this railway has been taking up great sums of public funds for a good purpose: opening the interior and opening the north. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no way that we intend to go along with that continuing practice of coming in and issuing more shares and then buying them up ourselves so that the railroad says that we are making all this kind of money. That kind of sham must be stopped so that ordinary people in this province will begin to understand that there is some semblance of decency….

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the railroad going to lose money this year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The railroad has lost money from its inception, Mr. Member, right from its very beginning. Anybody knows that. You must view the railroad as a service enterprise. Highways lose money the same way as railways do. But without the highways, without the railways, we would not have access to the resources that make us money. It's just as simple as that.

If we didn't have the railway, we wouldn't make the revenue we do in general revenue. But as an operation itself, the railway doesn't make money. Neither do highways, but they are part of a total economic structure. They are an essential part of that economic structure and it's a good thing that that railway was built.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know whether they make money or not?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm suggesting to you that we will tell the people exactly how much it costs to run the railroad.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, certainly he misses the point entirely. He just doesn't understand that this is the people's money, not a private corporation's money. This money belongs to all the people of British Columbia, not Social Credit, but all the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: So you're going to go ahead and lose money?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It has always lost money and I expect it always will lose money. Now do you get that? It lost money under Social Credit; it'll lose money under the NDP; and God help us if the Liberals ever came in, it'll lose money under them too. And if it happens to the Tories they'll lose money too.

MR. PHILLIPS: By that time it will be all air cargo.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, if air cargo is propelled through the force of wind from a small motor, you are certainly going to be the pioneer in that field. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't do so bad yourself.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, the question was raised about spelling out in the bill itself who would go on the board. I have said that we have yet to determine the method we would use to get the people we wish on the board. We want the forest industry represented on the board and we want a representative of the unions as well.

I expect that I will come off the board over a

[ Page 409 ]

period of time, but as president I was the one who initiated the inquiry and the report. I feel that it is my responsibility, after initiating those inquiries, to carry out the recommendation and then leave the board. It would be unfair in my opinion to half-finish the job and drop it on someone else. It is very time-consuming, but I am very interested. Once having launched the matter, then I feel it is my responsibility to carry out the recommendations.

If the recommendations and the actions from them fail, I would not want to allow another colleague of mine to accept that blame. If they work, and I think they will, then all the people of British Columbia will benefit.

I want to ask the Members to consider, after we get this in operation, the whole question of bidding on all government projects. I have asked the comptroller, the memo is on the way, for a report from him on all methods of government bidding of contracts. When he has a report, I hope to put that in the hands of the Public Accounts Committee early next spring.

Because this is the public's business and the Public Accounts Committee can best handle this kind of business., I see absolutely no political danger in allowing legislators to have access to this material and provide recommendations through the government to enable the business of government to be run better.

The business of government is separate from politics. That's a theory that was not practised in this province before, but it is going to be practised now. And to suggest that party people are going to be put on riles me very much. The pay for board members I think is $3,600 per year.

MR. McGEER: Gunderson got $20,000.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He got $20,000, on the board?

MR. McGEER: As an executive member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As an executive member he got $20,000 on the board?

AN HON. MEMBER: And he got some more from the B.C. Hydro, I think.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What a fantastic rip-off! We pay Ted Rowland, the local man on the regional district, $3,600; then Mr. Swanson, who was a civil servant faithfully for years, probably one of the most knowledgeable railroad people in the province, on the board. We've got the Minister of Labour, (Hon. Mr. King) probably the first time in the history of the railroad they had a fellow who actually ran a train sitting on the board. His contribution to the board is fantastic. He's very knowledgeable about….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, not at all. The only job I ever had on a railroad was washing dishes, That certainly doesn't give me the qualifications as the Member for Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. King). Once in a while I cooked, too…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: …but I was far more successful at washing dishes.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the bar?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Salad bar. (Laughter.)

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of the House to pass this bill. We will, within a year, be appointing someone from the forest industry and someone from the people who work on the railroad to the board. We'll have to work out some system to rotate them.

When we finish implementing the recommendations of the various reports we have, then I will step down as president. My career as president of a railroad will have been finished and I wish the new president, who will be the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) all the goodwill and success that he could possibly have on that railroad.

Perhaps what I can say in conclusion is that, with the passage of this Act, we'll stop being railroaded.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. MORRISON: I thought that this House was above personal attacks on Members. I take objection to the fact that the Premier is very touchy about a word which I did not use. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you wish the record corrected, Hon. Member, on the word?

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier used the word "hacks" which I did not use. I used the word "faithful," not "hacks." (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move second reading of Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern e Settlement Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 22 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting

[ Page 410 ]

after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
INCOME TAX ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, at the spring session the rate of corporation income tax payable by a corporation was raised from 10 per cent to 12 per cent. Complementary to this change, the amendments proposed in this bill allow deductions for companies at the increased rate for foreign tax or logging tax payed.

At the same time, the amendments clear any possible ambiguity as to the tax payable by corporations having part of their fiscal period in 1972. To give full benefit to the additional credit, the Act is retroactive to January 1, 1973, the date the tax rate was changed. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, since I raised the point in the spring session, we're obviously going to vote for this at this point, but there are one or two items that we'd like to discuss in the committee stage.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 23 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE COLOURED GASOLINE TAX ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Hon. Members will recall at the spring session that to encourage the use of less pollutant fuels, the definition of gasoline was amended so that propane or natural gas used to propel a motor vehicle was given a lower rate of tax. This change in the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act made natural gas used in the pumping stations of pipelines subject to tax.

However, the argument has been made by the companies that the intent of the Act was not clear in this regard. The amendments before you now therefore spell out this intention back to the date of the original amendments, April 1, 1973. In addition, the usual audit and appeal sections, similar to those in other taxation statutes, are provided to effect collection.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On this bill, I would like to suggest perhaps that in the definition section, where we are dealing with the question of liquefied petroleum gas and also natural gas, we are entering into the principle of putting in definitions sections which are entirely in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and will be done entirely by regulation. It is a principle to which, although we will be supporting this Act, we would like to question the Minister in order to have some information from him.

The whole purpose of a definition section is to define terms. To leave this entirely in the hands of regulation we feel to be very questionable, and we trust the Minister will be discussing that at the time that he closes the debate.

For example, I would think that it would be quite possible and desirable to have this defined in terms of calorific value. I think that you can certainly compare gasoline, diesel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, on the basis of calorific value. There is no need for this type of definition by order-in-council which, I feel to be a very undesirable principle. Perhaps there is some explanation for this of which I am unaware. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) might well comment on this.

A general question, Mr. Speaker: I wonder why it is necessary for there to be a tax of 3 cents a gallon on these two gases, which are equivalent to gasoline. It would seem desirable, in light of what the Premier has said and in the light of surpluses which he has talked about in the past, for this tax to be abolished in that area — and particularly, as he says, as we are dealing with a fuel which is a great deal less polluting than gasoline in terms of motor vehicles. Perhaps, again, when he is discussing this, he will indicate what the reason for the tax is and why it has been felt necessary to keep it on.

I would have thought it would be more desirable to take it off entirely in view of the fact that you are dealing with a less-polluting fuel. Of course, internal-combustion engines contribute about 70 per cent of our air pollution in the province. As it is at the present time, we are paying a tax higher, when it is used for motor fuel, than that on gasoline — which is another Act — and it is an anomaly in another Act. But I wonder whether, again, the Minister would indicate the approach that has been taken here; because, to me, it's unclear. It's a desire, I am sure, to cut the taxes on this coloured gasoline, but I fail to see why it has not been possible to define it clearly and why it has been necessary at all to have the tax on. I still don't understand.

MR. MORRISON: We will be in favour of this and will have further discussion in the committee stage.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As to the principle of the tax, I will certainly comment now and perhaps, along with the Members for Victoria, the specifics can be dealt with in committee.

There is no tax now on this fuel that is being used by the pipeline. The tax that we are proposing is far below what exists for other fuels. We did reduce the tax on propane fuels used by automobiles in the last budget.

Now this is a minor, 3-cent-a-gallon tax so that this industry shares its fair tax burden. It has been escaping its tax burden up to this point. The 3-cent-a-gallon burden is not prohibitive, certainly not unfair, but it is quite just. We are closing here an advantage, an unfair advantage, on the competitive basis that this particular lack of tax permitted.

I think it would be best in committee stage to go through section by section on the definitions as they are, Mr. Member. At that point I would move that the question be put.

Motion approved.

Bill 25 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

SESSIONAL REPORTS SUSPENSION ACT

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this simple housekeeping Act, which may be with us for some time and reintroduced, I think, on fairly regular occasions. The purpose of the bill is to enact a Sessional Reports Suspension Act to suspend the tabling of reports during this particular session of the Legislature.

The difficulty we are in is that sprinkled throughout our statutes are the requirements to present reports from departments usually, and I think almost invariably, on an annual basis. This is normally done in the spring session. The bureaucracy, if I may use that term of endearment, is geared to doing it at the spring session. And at the spring session, as the Members well know, the tabling of reports comes in like a flood. It therefore means that in order to be in law and to obey the statues, we have to do something about the second session of the House, because you don't want another annual report.

Therefore, we will pass, I think, on fairly frequent occasions this little bill, this little Act, that gets us out of that particular embarrassing situation. The House will remember that it passed this principle in

[ Page 411 ]

the form of one of the sections of the reduction of allowances Act passed approximately a year ago. I think that we will ask under probably a more ongoing statute, perhaps even the Statutes Act itself, that perhaps a more permanent way of solving this problem could come out of that particular discussion. Or, indeed, as some of the Members mentioned about rationalizing the current situation we are in, it could happen in that way as well. But at this particular point of time we need this so that we can all be in order. I move second reading.

MR. MORRISON: We are obviously in favour of this Act, but we would like to suggest that perhaps some interim reports of items which could be handled at this second sitting be included so that we have some interim reports that were not complete.

MR. GARDOM: I would just like to make an observation here. Over the years I have suggested on many occasions to the House that it is a poor thing that certain of our statutes establish the confidentiality of reports. One that comes to mind and one that I have introduced amendments to is the Trust Companies Act, wherein the Inspector of Trust Companies has to report only to the Minister of Finance and to the Attorney General.

In my view, if we are going to have open government in the Province of British Columbia, I do feel that all reports of that nature should by law be presented and tabled within the House, as opposed to falling within exception sections.

The point dealing with that specific statute, as I said, is one that has been raised by myself. My memory is somewhat hazy on the point, but I do believe that the last time I did introduce the amendment I received some assurance — it might well have been from the Minister who is speaking to this bill — that a considerable amount of thought be given to the point that was raised and that these reports would be made available for the Legislative Assembly.

The point in question is an extremely dramatic one from the historic point of view — and that dealt, of course, with the Commonwealth Trust situation. Had the Inspector of Trust Companies' report been tabled in the House, had it been open to the public, had the public known of the situation of that trust company, literally millions of dollars would have been saved for hundreds and thousands of people in this province. I would very much appreciate having the comments of the Hon. Provincial Secretary when he closes the debate upon the points I have raised.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: In addressing myself to the debate, there were two points basically made and one

[ Page 412 ]

is of interim reports. We have an oral question period and we have questions on the order paper.

I sympathize with the Members' thirst for information, but I think I can honestly say that never has so much information crossed the floor of this chamber than there does at this current moment. I think it is fair to say that if the Member wants any specific information from the Ministers, it is invariably available. I am not too sure that we want to get into the formalized requirement in a statutory way of providing interim reports, but certainly that has to go on its merits.

The second point is the question of sunshine, public scrutiny, Bill 16, that the Member adjourned himself. No, I adjourned it in the debate about a week ago.

I agree with the Member that he has made a compelling argument from time to time, particularly the one about Commonwealth Trust. May I advise him, by way of reply, that I have already had a number of meetings as Provincial Secretary with the new Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Vickers, who has yet to be, I think, introduced perhaps formally on the floor of the House. I hope that happens before too much time goes by.

We are looking at the whole question of the statutes themselves, to the requirements for this kind of reporting, and that kind of openness that the Member has addressed himself to on many occasions. I remember fondly sitting next to him over on that back wall there, as long ago as 1966.

Mr. Speaker, I move the question be now put.

Motion approved.

Bill 20 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Well, Mr. Speaker, this is truly housekeeping of the best sort in that we are limiting the name of the department to the "Department of Health." In the past it's been called the "Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance."

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are the first to sympathize with my feeling. Each time you have had to introduce me, you've had some difficulty with that long, devastating kind of title. But it could even be worse. If they were to have named the department properly in the first place it should have been called the "Department of Health Services, Hospital Insurance, Mental Health and Medicare." So it could be much worse.

MR. SPEAKER: Sounds like a speech. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: In any event, Mr. Speaker, we feel this more truly represents the department. We will naturally be changing in due course, subject to the House's wish today, our letterheads and so on. We are not going to be wasting what we have, but in due course, as we run out of stationery and letterheads, we will be making those kind of changes.

I would therefore, if there is any debate on this issue, be only too glad to answer any questions after I've heard from the opposition.

Hearing none, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

Motion approved.

Bill 39 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

BEEF GRADING ACT

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to re-enact the Beef Grading Act to facilitate the adoption of beef carcass grading regulations made under the Canada Agricultural Products Standard Act. New federal regulations which went into effect in September of 1972 are still waiting adoption under our provincial Act.

The bill before us will also allow for establishment of procedures to be followed by packing plants in weighing and paying for beef carcasses where these are purchased on the basis of a carcass grade.

I move second reading of Bill 6.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister closes the debate.

Motion approved.

Bill 6 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 31,

[ Page 413 ]

Mr. Speaker.

VETERINARY LABORATORIES ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this is a new bill to provide for some regulation of veterinary laboratories. There has been some concern expressed in the minds of people in my department, and in the minds of some people operating veterinary laboratories themselves, that there should be some regulation of these laboratories. Of course, to have regulations there has to be licensing so that one knows where these laboratories exist, something about the people who are operating them, and the conditions under which they operate.

Really, the purpose of this licensing and regulation in the first place is so that someone somewhere will know exactly what is happening with respect to livestock disease protection in the province and so that we will be aware what diseases we are faced with if there is any danger at all in some areas.

There is certainly no evidence that this happened so far, nothing to which we would point any finger, but there is always the possibility that someone may wish to suppress information about a disease, at least until they know more about it or are more aware of the danger of its spreading and the extent to which it has spread. Again, I am not suggesting that this has happened, but they may even want to move livestock out of their area before knowledge of the existence of this particular disease in those animals is known.

So we feel that there should be a licensing of these veterinary laboratories wherever they exist. The department, as a result of this licensing, would have the authority to ask that records and specimens be kept for some time so that there is opportunity for examining these should the need for this arise. It's with that in mind that we have introduced this legislation that provides for licensing. The licensing, in turn, will provide for regulation and, in the same way that an auditor works, to make sure that nothing is happening in the province with respect to the control, or lack of control, of livestock disease, and to make sure that nothing is happening that shouldn't be happening.

In the belief that this legislation will do something to reassure people engaged in the livestock industry in the province, I move second reading of Bill 31.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, while this legislation will hamper the movement of some forms of livestock, it's certainly a step in the right direction because of what we have seen where cholera, anthrax and other diseases of this nature have been suppressed as far as information is concerned. Certainly, while it may seem cumbersome to some agricultural enterprises, for their own protection it's needed. I think it's time that we do have this sort of a check on matters of this nature.

We have an excellent veterinary laboratory in which these diseases can be verified if there is some question in the mind of the local veterinary, if there is a local veterinary. Certainly, this will be of great assistance to stopping the spreading of diseases indiscriminately throughout the province.

In this day and age we have a much greater movement of livestock, poultry and so on throughout the province. In a matter of hours livestock can be moved from the lower mainland to the Kootenays, to the Peace River country, and the disease can travel just that fast too. It could be very devastating to the livestock and poultry industry of this province. We know all about Newcastle disease and things of this nature. I am very happy to support this legislation, along with the rest of the official opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister of Agriculture closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could just add a few words to the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen. I am pleased to hear him say that he knows from his own experience that we do have an excellent lab right now. We are in the process of expanding the laboratory facilities there.

There has been some concern expressed by cattlemen in the province and in some instances they have to send some material outside the province altogether. In one instance, I was told by a cattleman that he had to send it as far away as Quebec to get results quickly. As the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen well knows, speed is certainly very important in some circumstances.

It will, as he suggests, possibly interfere with the movement of livestock in and out of certain areas. But quite apart from controlling the disease itself, which is one feature of it, we will be able to reassure people that we are doing everything possible to make sure that, in moving cattle and livestock generally, we are minimizing as much as possible the risk of moving any disease along with the animals.

I now move second reading of Bill 31.

Motion approved.

Bill 31 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 414 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 2.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MEDICAL GRANT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 2- Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2. approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
AN ACT RESPECTING MEDICAL SERVICES

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, An Act to Amend an Act Respecting Medical Services, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE VETERINARY MEDICAL ACT

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there was a question raised in the second reading by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) about section 4 and I have checked this.

The changes are requested by the members of the veterinary association themselves. If any abuses occur out of this, it is something they will have to take up with their own council, But certainly, this is in line with what they feel they need to do a better job of policing their own organization.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 5.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
AGRICULTURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria):, I put a question to the Minister in second reading. He indicated he had a great burden of correspondence and he needed someone to take over some of that from him. He did indicate he would inform me just exactly what the burden was.

In addition, this is for the second section but I will ask this question at the same time so he can perhaps answer both together. I would like to know the cost to the province of this adjustment in indebtedness and in the position that the province might be in with respect to other creditors. Perhaps he might answer those two questions.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question on section 1 as to the volume of this, I did make a count and then forgot to comment. On the average, in the last six weeks, it has been ten documents a day. This may not seem very much but

[ Page 415 ]

some days there are 30 or 40 of them and this does interfere, especially when the House is in session.

The real concern here is not so much that one doesn't have time to sign the documents going across one's desk like that, but it becomes just a routine thing and you sign things that are put in front of you without really examining them. By asking that someone else in the department give more consideration to some of these documents when they are signed, then asking that there be a summary report as to just what is being accomplished with these documents, I feel that I will be supervising the work of my department more effectively than I am under the present circumstances.

Shall we leave section 2 until we come to it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I certainly accept the Minister's statement in this regard and we would hate to think the Minister is signing documents routinely, not reading what he is signing, appearances to the contrary, when documents are in front of him. But we would like to repeat our objection to this being carried too far.

The fact is, we often discuss legislation and it is indicated that the Minister is responsible. We then get the impression that, somehow or other, in the Legislature we will have the opportunity of having a fairly close watch on what goes on. Later on, amendments of this nature come up which put things into regulations and we lose sight of the opportunity for correction and the opportunity to oversee, simply because it passes into the hands of other people other than the Minister. Instead of having legislation, it goes to regulation and we just don't have, at the present time, adequate ways of checking on regulations put out by the executive council. This has been pointed out on a number of occasions, not only by Members of the opposition.

So we would just like to register that, while we are willing to agree with the Minister in this case, we trust that in legislation of this nature each case will be considered individually and that great care will be taken before Ministers slough off their responsibility onto other people.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think I indicated during second reading that in some cases a large portion of these documents are discharges of charges against property once they have been fully paid off, charges that were registered some fifteen years prior to this date. So there are documents like that that could very well be signed by others. Even contracts for new work.

It would seem to me these people working in the department have to accept the responsibility for examining these more closely and for reporting to me as Minister as to what is happening in the province generally, particularly with respect to the agricultural land areas, as will be designated once the work of the Land Commission proceeds a little further along the road. It is in relation to those areas that I am most anxious that we watch what is happening with respect to this particular legislation.

The opportunity to question the work of the department and my stewardship over the department will still be there in estimates when the money is voted annually. That is not entirely satisfactory; it happens once a year. But there is always that opportunity to question the programme, apart from the principle report to the Legislature on the total work of the department.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The question as to how much this would cost was raised by the Hon. Member in second reading. I believe I answered it when he was momentarily out of the House.

The fact that the provincial government is prepared to move into a second position in itself will not cost anything. The only occasion in which cost might arise would be if it were necessary to foreclose and there was then some loss to the second, or third, or fourth, as I suggested. It needn't be a second position by this change, if there is any loss. I said that the experience of the Farm Credit Corporation is excellent. I don't recall that they have ever had to foreclose in the Province of British Columbia. It may have happened.

I recall the throne speech debate, discussing the Hudson report, when he reported that in the last 10 years there hadn't been a single foreclosure in the Okanagan area, the area generally recognized as the most depressed area in agriculture, fruit farming, and yet in the last 10 years there hasn't been a single foreclosure by farm credit.

So as I say, I can't really put a cost figure on this. I expect that there will not be any foreclosures. One of the reasons I feel fairly confident about that is that we did introduce, and the House approved in second reading the Farm Income Assurance Plan. And there will be further legislation coming before the House that will make it just that much more certain it will not be necessary to foreclose, which is the only way we could lose under this section.

Section 2 approved.

[ Page 416 ]

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Agricultural Land Development Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Committee on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I refer to the second subsection of the new section 16. Would the Minister please indicate the basis for the requirement that the name of the vendor has to be painted on a vehicle rather than displayed, because it would seem that the permanence of such display would dictate the ownership of the vehicle had to be that of the vendor. It seems to me that interferes with the ease of transport of dairy products and would seem to be unduly restrictive.

It's quite obvious, I'm sure, that in the transportation of dairy products the occasion may arise when vehicles other than those of the vendor would be involved. Indeed there might be some cooperative arrangements made among several of the vendors and this section would seem to be unduly restrictive. Perhaps the Minister would indicate what circumstance has occurred in the dairy industry which makes this essential.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a lot of unemployed painters.

MR. WILLIAMS: A lot of unemployed trucks as well.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, one has to look at the word "painted" and see how literally that would be interpreted. If it were just a sign that was sort of hanging loose it could be easily removed, and then there would be no control.

The real concern is that milk be moved only by people who have indicated that they treat milk as a highly-perishable product, one that has to be properly cared for, properly handled and properly stored, if it is to be moved. We insist that this be done in vehicles that are equipped for that purpose, and that they be prepared to identify themselves. But, as to whether one would insist that it be actually painted or simply affixed, perhaps affixing a plate on the truck would be adequate.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would the Minister enlarge on his comments? Does this mean that no packaged milk can be moved by a common carrier? Because if you look at the wording of section 3(2), you would preclude the movement of any packaged milk, ice cream, butter, any dairy product whatsoever by a common carrier. If you want to run it to the fullest extent, you could say that a farmer could not put a cream can on the back of his truck and move it to the dairy in town if you follow it to the letter of the law. Maybe the Minister would comment further.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I suppose one could read it that way. All I can — say is that it's not the interpretation I would place on it that one would interpret it quite that literally. What we are talking about here are the people who are in the business of moving milk. As you say, you could even apply it against the farmer the way it reads. Now I can't imagine under any circumstances that anyone charged with policing this Act would try to use it under those circumstances. So one might perhaps have to look beyond the letter of the law and try to imagine circumstances where anyone would raise the question as to whether a certain person was breaking the intent of this legislation in moving milk.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe I'd ask, now that it has been brought up to his attention, if he could take a look at it with a view of bringing in an amendment sometime. Because I don't think we should have legislation that is open to interpretation; It should be as explicit as possible. So I would like to ask the Minister if he would give consideration to re-checking that out and possibly bring in an amendment at a later session.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well the suggestion has been raised on the basis that the bill be withdrawn. I don't think that this is a really serious suggestion in view of the other provisions in this….

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report

[ Page 417 ]

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE OLEOMARGARINE ACT

House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Oleomargarine Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE ACT

House in committee on Bill 9, Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask leave of the House to introduce an amendment to section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave is not required in committee.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to move an amendment. The amendment reads as follows, Mr. Chairman. It's to amend Bill 9, the Farm Income Assurance Act, section 1, line 6, by adding after the word "designate" the following words:

"Notwithstanding the provisions contained in section 1 and section 2 of this Act, no farm income plan described in this Act shall have full force and effect until the terms and conditions of the farm income plan have been referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture for detailed study and approval."

Now, in speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, during debate on the second reading of this bill our main criticism was that the bill was very vague and that it took away from the Legislature the right to have any input into how the farm income plans would be drawn up. It took out of the Legislature any input with regard to the costs of these plans and how they would work. We also stated that this legislation, although we agreed to it in principle, could have been done by the Minister bringing in a motion which could have been debated in the House and would have given him the same authority to go ahead and deal with the principle of the Act.

Now, I feel that the government, by accepting this amendment, will be living up to their promise of open government; they will be living up to their promise of endeavouring to have the committees function; and they will also be living up to their commitment to allow the Legislature the proper input into a piece of legislation as important as this.

I think it is very well recognized by the members on the committee, by the House and by the agriculture industry that -the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture was a very conscientious and hard-working committee and that during its five weeks of hearing this summer it certainly gained a greater insight into the problems of the farming community. By the government accepting this, it will not delay the implementation of any farm income plan, as it would had we asked that such plans come back to the Legislature. The committee can be called on a week's notice, sit down and go over the plans and give it a stamp of approval or disagree with it as the case may be. But by so doing, as I say, it won't delay the intent of the bill. I think in all consciousness the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) will have to agree with that, and I also think that the committee, by taking a look at the bill, may be able to come up with some input or make some changes.

I feel that if the Minister of Agriculture really wants to have the Legislature have some say in how this bill is going to be implemented, he will accept this amendment. It doesn't say that the committee is going to override the executive council in any way, shape or form; therefore it should be perfectly legal. I would ask that all Members in the Legislature support this amendment, on both sides of the House, and I would ask that the Minister of Agriculture accept this

[ Page 418 ]

amendment, because as I say this will give the Legislature some input into the implementation of this very, very important bill without delaying the operation of the bill. Therefore I move the amendment.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, speaking to the amendment, it's the position of the official opposition that the whole process of implementing this particular bill is so vague and is couched in such terms that it's almost impossible to know exactly what the Minister has in mind, or if he really has a plan at all in mind that will, in some way, provide an assured income for farmers.

It is our belief that the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture is a very good vehicle. It has proved its worth during these last few months when it went on tour of the province. The committee has listened to people, it has got a great deal of information from the different farming communities, and it's obvious to us that any plan which will seek to help standardize income for farmers will have to have a fair amount of flexibility. The farming problems in the Province of British Columbia vary quite extensively from area to area.

I can appreciate the problem that the Minister would have in trying to reduce to legislative perfection a bill which would cover every foreseeable situation that would involve farmers, but because of the fact that we do have a legislative committee which is active and has a number of Member& from both sides of the House on that committee, we feel that as you work your way into this plan the best course of action would be to put whatever plan on whatever commodity you have in mind before the agricultural committee before implementing it. That way you will have continuous input from people who were actively involved in the whole agricultural process in the Province of British Columbia and who became intimately more familiar with the problems of the whole province this year than they had ever had an opportunity to do before.

I think that it would show the Minister has good faith in not only the committee but the legislative process if he would accept this amendment and put any type of a plan that he may now or in the future have in mind before the agricultural committee before implementing it.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this motion. I think it is a very comprehensive motion and it's not one which would set a precedent.

Under the Natural Products Marketing Act of British Columbia certain schemes are approved by order-in-council. The legislation in each case is the guidelines for the various schemes. Various schemes have variations to each other, whether it's the Oyster Marketing Board, the cedar shingle marketing board, the poultry marketing board or whatever it happens to be. Now, this bill could be handled in exactly the same way. The bill would be the authority for the setting up of the schemes, and because of the variance of agricultural products and the diversification of the problems involved in coming up with the necessary type of a scheme for each product, this in itself then would permit the cabinet then to pass the necessary order-in-council, based on the scheme, after it had had input from the agricultural committee. I heartily support the amendment.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I would like to speak in support of the amendment. I believe that not only would it be advantageous to have input from the agricultural committee, but it would give the opportunity for the committee on agriculture to ask for papers and persons, as is the normal procedure of a committee, and allow the input of the farmer himself.

Let me give you an example of just why it would be advantageous. In the Milk Marketing Board there is a regulation that says that the increase in milk price is going to be regulated by taking the average increase of the cost of production over the past 10 years, and then that average increase will be added on to the price of milk for this present year, and as a result you have got a one-tenth adjustment. Now, over a normal period of 10 years it might be acceptable because there would be a gradual increase, but over a period such as we have just experienced, where there has not been, for instance, an increased cost of the price of grains from 1962 till 1972, the increased cost is zero per cent. Now, from 1972 to 1973 the increase is 79 per cent. As a result the increase that is paid to the farmer for the production of his milk is going to be one-tenth of that 79 per cent, or 7.9 per cent. It doesn't give him adequate coverage for his cost of production.

As a result I do not believe the board would be aware and the Minister would not be aware that an adjustment in excess of 10 per cent would be necessary, unless he had input from the farming community itself. For that reason alone I would support this amendment to have the entire bill referred to the agricultural committee for consideration.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, in response to the Hon. Member for Chilliwack, certainly we've

[ Page 419 ]

envisioned from the beginning and from all of the discussions that we've had on this bill to date, that there would be opportunity for the farmers affected by any specific plan — that is, any plan designed to meet the needs of any commodity group — or representatives of that particular farming group, to make their representations, and that there would be full discussion before any plan is embarked upon.

The question really before us right now is: should that discussion be with staff in the Department of Agriculture or staff in any of the agencies or corporations that the bill suggests may be set up? So the question really is: who is going to enter into the discussions with the people affected?

I would suggest that better than the Select Standing Committee, when it comes to ironing out the details of the plan, it would be much better to have the details at least — and I think the Member will appreciate that part of it — worked out with people who are knowledgeable about the specific proposals — the insurance aspects of it, if you like.

Not necessarily in every case would it be a premium plan, as I indicated, and the bill doesn't say that it would be. But certainly it would be better to work it out, at least in the initial stages, with staff people who are working on that, rather than people who are members of the Select Standing Committee and who come from varied walks of life.

The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) suggests that this would not start a precedent, but he did not give any evidence that ever before had a Select Standing Committee been given authority to approve any plan. I believe that in the words of the amendment the suggestion is that the Select Standing Committee be asked to approve any plan before it be considered any further. So I think this would be very much in the way of establishing a precedent.

The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) in pursuing the point that the best way to handle entry into a farm income assurance plan would be to put this plan before the Select Standing Committee — that we'd be dealing with people who are knowledgeable about the needs of the farming industry because of the experience that the members gained in the summer of 1973 travelling around the province and meeting the farmers — sounds, on the face of it, like a reasonable argument.

But, Mr. Chairman, today, Wednesday, October 3, we don't have a Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. The select standing committee has not been named yet. The select standing committee named in the Legislature in the spring session, 1973, was given by this Legislature certain specific tasks to investigate, to report on. Once having reported on those specific tasks, having discharged its responsibility, it became defunct. There is no more committee until that committee is set up by the Legislature and until that committee is given a specific role to perform in the time ahead.

We may name a select standing committee in this session. The suggestion has not been advanced yet, but we may very well name it. The Legislature may even give the select standing committee some specific tasks to perform in the months between this session and the next spring session. I'm speculating; I don't know whether it will or not.

Certainly the Legislature has not indicated to this point in time either that it will name a committee and, even if it does name a committee, whether or not it will give it any specific task to perform and, in the event that it did give it a specific task to perform, that one of the tasks would be this particular one.

The other point that I wanted to make on that: we may name the committee, as I say. We may name an entirely different committee from the one that sat through this summer, which might be a good thing. It might give other Members a good deal more knowledge about the agricultural industry in this province than they presently have, and they might be more persuaded that they should support legislation such as we're discussing at the moment if they had this experience.

With all these things in mind, then, the suggestion that referring it to the select standing committee would give input to the legislation, I think, is not very reasonable in that we have given the assurance that the way this would be discussed, would be worked out, would be to have staff meet with representatives of the agricultural groups to work out plans, and that the plans would then be considered not with a relatively small group of members of a select standing committee, but rather by the executive council, presently 18 in number.

These are the people — even more Members than are on the select standing committee — with an even wider knowledge collectively of agriculture and the problems of agriculture than the select standing committee would have. Mr. Speaker, the government cannot accept that amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. The Minister made a statement that there would be full discussion before a plan would be embarked upon and he said that staff would meet

[ Page 420 ]

with the representatives of the agricultural community. Search as I have been doing, I can find nothing in the Act about consultation, nothing in the Act guaranteeing that there will be full discussion.

I wonder whether perhaps my eyes have failed me, and whether the Minister can find that in the bill and tell me where it is.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I suppose we're still discussing section 1. If I can borrow from the words of the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) who kept saying that there's nothing in the legislation that would prevent it from doing certain things, neither is there anything in the legislation specifically that would instruct it to do certain things.

As we said from the beginning, the legislation is extremely flexible and would allow us to enter into the best form of negotiations, the form of negotiations that would be most appropriate for the farmers in any commodity group.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My memory may again have failed me, but I understand the word the Minister used was "vague," not "flexible." This legislation is, as he's mentioned — I believe I counted eight times — vague.

But what is there there that would guarantee what the Minister is talking about to the agricultural producers of British Columbia? Sure, there's nothing that would prevent it, but is there in the legislation anything which we can look at and say that there we have the commitment in writing of the Minister of Agriculture in the bill, in the legislation, which would insist upon his department, his staff people, meeting with representatives of the agricultural community, or which would require the "full discussion before a plan is embarked upon" which the Minister talked of less than three or four minutes ago?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The guarantee in the legislation, Mr. Chairman, is not how we will achieve anything, but rather that the farmers in this province will have an opportunity to enter into discussions for a farm income assurance plan for the representatives in the farming community, commodity group by commodity group. We're interested in the results rather than in the form.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How will they, Mr. Chairman; I'm sorry if I….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member if he would confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right, the amendment is whether or not this has to go to a standing committee or whether or not the producers themselves, without referring to Members of the Legislature, will be able to get their views across — right? Okay.

Now how will there be this type of flexible plan arrived at commodity by commodity with consultation with the producers? There's nothing in the bill which talks about this, nothing which requires it and, while I appreciate the dilemma that we're faced with, I'd like to know how it's going to happen.

Can you guarantee that there will be no plans introduced without the approval of the producer group in that particular commodity? In which case, can we not put it into the legislation by amendment? If we can't do that, perhaps there is some merit in the amendment the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has raised.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I made it clear that the government will not accept the amendment introduced by the Member for South Peace; that it is an amendment that would simply make it more difficult to achieve a proper plan; that it's an amendment that could not work if the select standing committee was not constituted at the time we were discussing the possibilities of any plan.

I'm interested, Mr. Chairman, that the Members opposite are so fascinated with the work of the select standing committee that they feel it should be given this added responsibility, a very technical responsibility in some cases, when never before in the history of their 20 years in administration did they think it was worthwhile even having the committee in existence doing anything at all between sessions.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that it's doubly necessary that this farm income assurance plan go before the standing committee due to the very fact that this legislation is so vague. That's why it makes the work of a select standing committee twice as important; and that's why it's absolutely necessary that these plans do go before the select standing committee.

For the Minister to try and tell me that there is no Select Standing Committee on Agriculture at the present time…the way I read the statutes, it says that the select standing committee is always a committee of this House. The fact that we haven't named the people to it yet is merely the mechanics of the thing.

If the government had been on the ball, and if the Attorney General had been on the ball, the select standing committee would have been named already. That's utterly helpless and the Minister of Agriculture knows that.

What he wants to do is take this bill, as he said when he introduced it, he wants to take it out of the realm of the Legislature altogether. He doesn't want

[ Page 421 ]

his farm income plan to come back so that the Members of this Legislature can have any input. He said the bill is specifically vague….

If I were asking in an amendment to have these plans come back to the floor of this Legislature, you could say that I was trying to delay; it would slow up the workings of the government. But I'm not asking for that. I'm merely asking for something that this government promised: open government, make the committees work, let there be input.

But no. I can't understand for the life of me why the Minister wants to take his farm income assurance plans and hide them from this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the Premier. He's always talking about he's the man who invented democracy. You'd think that he invented it.

Well I say to the Premier, if he wants to bring us his so-called democracy, there is not one single thing in the world preventing the government, if they are sincere in their wish to have this Legislature function, from having the people from the farming communities represented on these plans that are coming in. If the government is sincere, they would accept this amendment.

The standing committee will be appointed, and I would hope that the select standing committee will be the same as it was last year, because we have not finished the terms of reference so far as the tree fruit industry is concerned. And if you put new members on the committee, the numerous weeks of sitting, checking into the tree fruit industry, is going to go down the drain. The new members will have to go through that again, the farmers will have to go through that again, the associations, all of the people who had any input into the tree fruit industry will have to go through this again to re-educate the members of the committee.

I'd like the Minister of Agriculture to stand on the floor of this Legislature and tell me the true reason why he doesn't want to accept this amendment. Because I'm losing my….

The Minister was incredible when he said the reasons for not accepting are not credible to this House; they don't do credit to the Minister of Agriculture. Now would the Minister please give me the true reason?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I'm maturing. A year ago I couldn't have laughed at the remarks of the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). However, I will say this. When he is talking about the personnel of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, I hope that he will be a member of the next committee when the House names it. I feel that in spite of his contribution this afternoon, his contribution as a member of that committee was well worthwhile. He was a good member of that committee. I think perhaps he should have quit while he was ahead.

In any case, Mr. Chairman, I made it quite clear that we cannot accept that amendment. I made it quite clear that in our minds it would hold up the works of establishing income assurance plans for the farmers in this province. I made it quite clear that the guarantee that we want with this legislation is not that we will provide administrative work for the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to do, but a guarantee that we will provide income assurance plans.

If you want some work for the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture when the committee is named, then we are quite prepared to consider specific tasks, the sort of tasks that took that committee around the province. Not sitting in an office somewhere waiting for a commodity group to come in and discuss the details of an income assurance plan, but the sort of tasks that take them out into the farming community where they have an opportunity to meet the farmers, eyeball to eyeball, to hear their problems, to ask questions and to bring back to this House the sort of recommendations that they did bring back in the report they made. That's the kind of work the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture should be doing; not discussing administration.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to stand right in this legislative chamber, eyeball to eyeball with the Minister of Agriculture, and tell him that he is misreading the amendment. I did not ask that the select standing committee get into the nitty gritty details of drawing up the plans. I asked that the select standing committee, when the plan is finalized, after you've had the input by the personnel in your department — and you know that Mr. Minister…. You're trying to twist the amendment and it's…. .

AN HON. MEMBER: It's too vague.

MR. PHILLIPS: What I want to know is the true reason, Mr. Minister, why you won't allow this plan, after it's been finalized, even…

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, be quiet!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: …even after it's been okayed by cabinet, to go before this committee. Do you realize that you are missing a big political bet, Mr. Minister of Agriculture? I lose my respect for you as a

[ Page 422 ]

politician, because you have the opportunity here to take these plans, put them before the committee….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You want him to play politics in the committee? Shame on you!

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, why don't you be quiet, Mr. Premier?

You could take these plans, put them before….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah! The point is that if the plan isn't a good one, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture will be able to pick it apart. Maybe that's what the Minister is afraid of. Now is that really what he's afraid of?

On the other hand, if it's a good plan….

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't play games.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not playing games at all. I'm far from playing games. But your Minister of Agriculture is playing games — political games. And that's a disgrace to the Legislature. That's the worst kind of politics there is; the worst kind of games there are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Political politics.

MR. PHILLIPS: Seriously, this would give the agricultural committee the opportunity to look at each plan as it comes down. And it isn't going to take that long. If it's a good plan they can look at it and give it their stamp of approval.

I'm not trying to find work for the agricultural committee. For the Minister to even suggest…. He knows full well that a lot of the Members on that agricultural committee had to give up being in their ridings, had to leave their businesses and their families to work for the Province of British Columbia and the agricultural community. For the Minister to suggest that we're trying to find work for that committee….

You know, Mr. Chairman, I had a lot of respect for the Minister of Agriculture at one time. But when he stands on the floor of this Legislature and makes suggestions like that, I have some very, very serious reservations about the Minister.

All I'm saying is that these plans should go before the committee, they should be opened to the light of day in front of the committee and, if the committee okays them, then the Minister can say okay, the plan is a good one. I've put it before the committee; the committee has checked it over; they think it's a good one. And it goes out to the farmers with the stamp of approval of both sides of the House. Now what in heaven's name is wrong with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: And it's NDP-dominated.

MR. PHILLIPS: What could possibly be wrong with that? What is the Minister afraid of?

You know, we supported this bill in principle; but I'm getting a little nervous right now about what the Minister has got up his sleeve.

Now, please, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, if you like, the rest of you can go home and we'll just…. As I understand the amendment now — and it's moving; the position is changing. Originally, when the amendment was moved, the Member moving the amendment suggested that the select standing committee, at least as I heard his discussion, would meet with the farmers and prepare a plan. The suggestion now, as I understand it, is that the plan be worked out with staff, and that I agree with. I agree that the staff, or the people who will meet the farmers….

MR. PHILLIPS: All we're asking is once the plan is drawn up that we give it our stamp of approval.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There's no reference in here to staff at all. But in any case that is in the amendment.

When he was discussing it originally he was talking about the opportunity for the select standing committee to meet with these farmers and talk about their plans.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: We'll have to wait until tomorrow to find out what we both said. (Laughter.)

But in any case, the suggestion is that the plan be worked out with staff. The staff having worked out a plan with farmers in any commodity group, the staff would come up with what they feel is a reasonable plan, the farmers agree that it's reasonable, two of them have now presented a plan. And now the select standing committee are going to go in and say whether or not they felt that my staff have done an adequate job of supervising the bringing-together of that plan.

It's my job to be responsible for what my staff are doing, not the authority of the select standing committee to supervise the work of the staff in the Department of Agriculture. I will be responsible for the work that that staff does as long as I am Minister of Agriculture. And I'll report to this House as the occasion arises on the work that is done in that Department of Agriculture.

You're suggesting simply that there be one more

[ Page 423 ]

roadblock. First that staff negotiate and, once they have arrived at a plan, then, instead of that plan going to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for approval, that there be another roadblock, that we wait until it's convenient to call a meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, that the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture might hold hearings to see whether or not they think this particular plan is adequate or inadequate. Really the concern in the mind of that Member — and this was a concerned voice in the debate, time after time — was that we might be doing too much for the farmers; we might be spending too much money on the farmers. That was the only criticism, the only concern that they ever voiced.

So the only concern that the Select Standing Committee would have when they were looking at these plans is, "Are we doing too much for the farmers?" There is no other reason to hold it up, unless you're afraid it's doing too much.

The plan will be worked out with staff in the Department of Agriculture. Once it has been worked out it will be presented by the Minister responsible. It may be the Minister of Agriculture, but not necessarily so. The Minister responsible will present it to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and at that time it will be decided whether or not we are going ahead with that plan for that commodity group. The Minister responsible will take the responsibility for the work done by his staff in developing that plan.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, now I'm beginning more and more to see the philosophy behind the Minister of Agriculture. He stands in this Legislature and says that any programme he would bring up in front of the duly-elected representatives of this province for scrutiny would be a road-block. The entire purpose of him bringing in such vague legislation in the first place is that he doesn't want it to have the light of day; he doesn't want it to come before the elected representatives of this province.

As I said during second reading, we not only have a responsibility to the farming community of this province, we also have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this province and we also have a great responsibility to the consumers of this province. For you to have to hide your programme behind a curtain and not allow it to come before the legislators of this province is indeed a philosophy.

I'm beginning to think that if you had your way and if the Premier had his way there would be no Legislature whatsoever; this province would be run by a complete dictatorship. We are just in the way. Opposition is just in the way and you'd like to see us done away with.

My concern is for the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia. I realize that the Minister is responsible for the people who work in his department but my responsibility is greater than the people who work in his department. My responsibility is to the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia. That's why I'm standing here today arguing on their behalf, trying to protect their rights against the overlords on the government side of the House.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I have been puzzled a few times in this House but never more puzzled than today to find that the vituperative outbursts of the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) follow by a few days his vote in favour of this bill. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: One day, yesterday.

MR. WALLACE: One day? Well, time is passing so quickly it's difficult to keep up.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want to be voting with him do you?

MR. WALLACE: No, I've got a problem though. I really have a problem. (Laughter.) I always figure when you have a problem you might as well let the whole world know.

We voted against the bill, Mr. Chairman, and although I have some reservations about the speed and effectiveness of taking it to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, I do feel that this exemplifies the intent of the amendment, although I'm not happy with the detail of the amendment. It does get the message across, I think — certainly for this party.

The standing committee might not be the best vehicle for the reasons the Minister has mentioned, but I think some vehicle of input from the Members, from the consumer groups and from the producer groups would have been a way of improving the final product, whatever your bill or plan will be in the final analysis. Therefore, while I have some reservations about the particular mechanism that the amendment suggests, I would have to say that I support the amendment only to get the message across that this party would appreciate some greater measure of public, consumer and producer participation than we are guaranteed in this bill.

And so, with a measure of regret, I support the amendment.

MR. RICHTER: The Minister made reference to my earlier remarks, saying that none of the schemes had ever been referred to committees before. But there is no provision within this Act that will permit a referendum to the commodity group to state their position as to whether they should come under such a scheme.

[ Page 424 ]

The Minister knows very well that he has a motion on the order paper now right along this line. While it may be less time-consuming to go before the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture on one of these matters, I still think there is the necessity of getting the approval of a majority of the producers in that particular commodity group.

While I may have been ridiculed for my earlier statement, I think it's still a fact that the scheme was always exposed. In fact, I referred the egg-marketing scheme three times before it received a supporting vote from the egg producers when I was Minister of Agriculture. This has happened over a course of time when various schemes have been proposed. It has taken time for the producers to accept them and support them. There is no provision here for a referendum.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there definitely is no provision for a referendum vote. A referendum vote might not be applicable in all circumstances. You mentioned the plebiscite for which there is a motion on the order paper and, in that particular circumstance, I feel a plebiscite is very worthwhile.

A referendum vote would only be important if all of the members in a certain commodity group were going to be included. In discussing this bill earlier in the session, I made it quite clear that in some cases it might be necessary for all of the members to be included. Certainly in a situation like that, anyone considering such a plan would not be irresponsible enough to go ahead with it unless there was a vote among the members of that commodity group.

But in other situations, if it was not deemed necessary for all of the farmers in that particular commodity group to be members, then there would be no point in having a referendum. The plan would be developed in consultation with the representatives of that commodity group, but no referendum.

The legislation is designed to be flexible, to allow that in some situations there might be a referendum and in others there might not. But we leave it the way it is so that it can accommodate any of these positions.

I think it's a question of responsible government really. The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture has no responsibility; it is not in a position of having to bear any responsibility if a plan that it approves or disapproves turns out to be good or bad. The government ultimately has to accept the responsibility for the working out of any plans.

The plan is designed in consultation with the farmers, with the staff or with the members of an agency, flexible to allow for any possible circumstances. Ultimately it is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that will have to take the responsibility, not a select standing committee.

As far as the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), it was suggested in the background here that he can quit now. No doubt he has the delegates from South Peace River in his pocket, but, I suggest, not if they're farmers. If he's trying to get the farmer vote he had better be careful. I have a press release here from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture put out on September 25 after the bill was tabled in the Legislature. I'll read the first paragraph: "The Farm Income Assurance Act provides the framework to deal with some of the serious income problems that continue to plague the agricultural industry." The B.C. Federation of Agriculture welcomed the legislation.

So if you're going after the farmer vote, be careful lest you lose the little bit that you already have. The South Peace River delegates are likely to have some farmers among them, so unless you've got some better reason for raising the amendment than simply campaigning, you'd better tell us what the reason is or vote against your own amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 32

PAIRED

MR. RICHTER: Would you report to the Speaker that we ask that the division be recorded?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, listening to the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Agriculture

[ Page 425 ]

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) go at one another, I thought that a faster way might have been for them to settle their differences up at the Williams Lake Stampede next year.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you know where Williams Lake is? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows where Williams Lake is.

MR. McGEER: So does the Premier. But, Mr. Member, you should have been the one who was there last July. (Laughter.)

But what I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture….

AN HON. MEMBER: The Speaker could have thrown hats. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: We've got programmes, arrangements, proposals, plans, schemes and so on. It's like the person who drafted this bill went through Roget's Thesaurus to come up with synonyms for a scheme. What I would like to ask the Minister is just exactly what in the way of some concrete action in the foreseeable future does he propose if we pass all the individual sections of this Act? What exactly are you going to do, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe the comments that were made were relevant to section 1, but the Minister may respond nevertheless.

MR. McGEER: Well, he talks about schemes, plans….

HON. MR. STUPICH: I took the comment, or the question if you'd like, as one related to the definition of farm income plan, which is in section 1. Certainly, somehow or other, I expect we will be able to get word to the farming community — they may hear about it through the grapevine or bush telegraph or something like that — that this legislation is being discussed in the Legislature and that the government is willing to sit down and talk with representatives of any commodity group about a farm income assurance plan for the farmers in that particular commodity group.

Now once they do hear about it, as I say, by whatever means are at their disposal — and if the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is talking to any farm organizations in the near future he might mention this to them, so that they will be aware of it if they haven't heard already; in one way or another I expect the farming community generally will become aware that this legislation is available — and, once they do become aware of it, I would expect them to be contacting my department trying to arrange for a conference, at which there might be some discussion of a farm income assurance plan that would suit the needs of the members of their particular commodity group.

We've already had requests for copies of the legislation from representatives of a number of the commodity groups. They've already shown that they have heard about it, that they're interested in reading about it. Presumably the next step will be for them to make appointments to discuss the details of a plan appropriate to that commodity group.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister's remarks of just a few moments ago are beginning to cast some light on the predicament in which the farming community finds itself under this legislation.

Now when we debated it the other day, I wondered why there weren't any specifics with respect to this plan. Then, as the debate went on on the amendment by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), I understood that the staff of the department were going to be negotiating with groups in the agricultural community and that out of that negotiation would come a plan.

The bill which is before us and in which section 1 describes the plan, calls for specific action by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But now it would appear that the word is going to go out and that commodity groups will come in to see the Minister and members of the department and begin to talk about the idea of an income assurance plan. And out of those discussions will come the framework, the skeleton of a plan, which will then be taken to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to consider.

So therefore it's quite obvious. Any member of the farming community who might be confused by this bill should recognize that the government has no plan, that they're going to wait for the farming community to come to the Minister and discuss it with him and from that a plan will evolve.

Now if I have misunderstood what the Minister says and the import of his remarks, I wish that he would correct me. Because this is exactly the fear that I expressed when speaking on this matter in second reading debate on Monday.

The Minister didn't know where he was going. He was looking for input from others in order to devise what the plan would be.

Looking at section 1 and the definition of farm income plan, there's another matter I'd like to have explained by the Minister. When he spoke on Monday in the opening of the second reading debate, he indicated most clearly to the House that he wasn't in favour of the federal government's farm income stabilization approach, that this administration, for the first time, was going to be concerned about the cost of production to ensure that the farmers would receive income in excess of the cost Of Production.

[ Page 426 ]

Now the Hon. Minister is himself a trained accountant. He knows what income means and what outgo means, and he knows what net income means. I wonder if he would please explain why, in the definition of farm income plan, there is no clear indication that the moneys that would be paid by the government to the farmer, guaranteed by the government to the farmer, or assured by the government to the farmer under any scheme that may be devised, will not be an adequate income to the farmer.

Why was it not made clear in the definition of the farm income plan that the moneys which were to be received by the members of the agricultural committee under such a plan would be in excess of the cost of production. That is not in the definition and it is nowhere else in the bill. This is certainly one aspect of the plan which didn't need any careful consideration by members of his staff because it is fundamental if we are to accept what the Minister said during the second reading debate.

Another aspect which I wish the Minister would respond to in talking about the farm income plan: everyone recognizes that the income of the farmer is what he receives for his produce. If we're talking about a net income plan, it will be what he receives for his produce that will be in excess of the cost of production. But what is the government prepared to do with respect to the income which is received from the sale of the produce?

We have, in the case of the egg producers in British Columbia, a vigorous, aggressive marketing board and they have, over the past several months, made sure that there were successive increases in the price paid to the producer for eggs. This was to ensure that the increasing cost of production was returned to the producer, thereby making certain that he had some chance of having income in excess of the cost of production.

Now would the Minister please indicate how he will arrange, with respect to every other agricultural commodity or commodity group who may come to him with some idea of how a plan should function, how their produce will be priced to the first buyer so that the maximum income is received at that level and the farmer is therefore enabled to recover all, or as much as he possibly can, of his cost of production. Because upon that aspect of control will depend the extent to which the government may be obliged to pay money to the farmer, to guarantee money to the farmer, or to assure that the farmer receives income.

It's a two-way street, Mr. Chairman. It's all very well to say that you will assure the farmer that he will receive more than the cost of production. But if you allow the prices then to drop to the very bottom of the scale, with the first purchaser of the produce taking all of the profit opportunity with respect to the subsequent sales of that produce, then it means that the government is going to be providing all the net income — all the income to the farmer — and someone else will make the profit.

I would like to know how the Minister is going to assure that the farmer is enabled to receive as much as he possibly should from the production of foodstuffs from his farm.

We have exactly the same situation facing us with agricultural products as faces the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Energy Commission with respect to gas. How are we going to ensure that the first buyer pays the value of the commodity, and that someone is not going to get it excessively cheaply and reap the benefits while the government of the Province of British Columbia is then, under some farm income plan, responsible to pay money out to farmers so that they have a net income in excess of the cost of production.

If we don't have the rudiments of a plan, surely the Minister must have at least thought out the answers to these problems. When we're discussing what a farm income plan is, he should be able to tell this House.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the message is finally getting across, after all the debate we've had on this legislation, that we don't have a specific plan to serve the needs of any commodity group. The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) said that he has suddenly come to the realization, as I heard him, that we don't have a specific plan.

I thought I made it clear from the very beg-inning that we have no specific plan. We're simply introducing flexible legislation; legislation that will enable us to design a specific plan to meet the needs of farmers in any commodity group; legislation flexible enough that will allow us to enter into agreement, when it becomes possible to do so, with the federal government to participate in guaranteeing the Farm Income Assurance Act — in guaranteeing that there will be an income.

Now I've said that so many times that I'm sure most of the Members must have heard of it and must be aware that that is the message: no specific plan, but flexible legislation that will enable us to enter into negotiation on specific plans.

The second point, income: and here it is really a question of definition as to what income is. The reference to the federal legislation was a good reference; but there the legislation specifically says "price stabilization," not "income." So this is the difference.

He is a lawyer and I am a chartered accountant. I look at a statement and I see "gross sales" — gross revenue, if you like; then I see "net operating margin," operating margin and all these headings. Finally we get down to the bottom and it says "income for the year,"

[ Page 427 ]

or "income for the period." Now in my mind, income is not income unless it is net income. Gross income means an income before deducting certain indirect expenses. Prior to that on the operating statement it's not income. It's revenue, it's sales, it's margin, if you like; but it's not income until you've got something left over.

As a farmer who went broke farming, as a chartered accountant, when I read the word income, it means something that a farmer has left to put in his pocket for the hours of labour that he has put in and for the managerial ability that he has put into it and for the interest on the investment that he has made in that enterprise.

Now all these things to me are deductions before you arrive at the word "income." And it's income for the period that we're concerned about. That's the way I read income. That's the way, I'm sure, the government reads it in introducing this legislation.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want our party to be on record in a little more detail than we were in the debate on second reading. Section 2 has several paragraphs and, at the risk of sounding repetitious, we just feel that there is much scope to have put some more guidelines or details in, into sections (a) to (g) in particular.

As I mentioned in the earlier debate, one of the greatest responsibilities of an MLA is to look after the dollars that the government spends. I think, having heard the explanation from the Minister as to how serious the problems are in agriculture, the fluctuation of market prices and all the problems which the producer encounters, to suggest that we should have a fund, or separate funds, by the Minister of Finance, and not even have the remotest ballpark figures even in the first year, let us say, of the operation of the fund, I think is irresponsibility on the part of the government.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: I repeat that in principle we recognize and wish to help the farmer; there's no question about that. But as I said in debate on second reading, the corollary doesn't mean that whatever the government comes forward with in the way of putting out taxpayers' dollars to help the farmer, that as long as there's some kind of plan, we are morally obligated to support that plan. I really don't think that any objective person would agree that that is the role of a critical opposition.

I recall other funds that have been debated — the setting up of other funds in this legislature: park development and acceleration of park development and different funds of this nature, recreation funds or funds for natural disasters, foreign relief and similar funds that, while we on the opposition have sometimes had reservations about the lack of detail as to how the money was to be spent, at least there was usually some figure. It was $5 million or $10 million or $50 million…or the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) mentioned the other day in a bill about Hydro of $500 million — or was it $50 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: $50 million.

MR. WALLACE: $50 million. While again we are objecting in principle to the lack of specific detail as to how that money might be spent, or how quickly it might be spent, or with what restrictions it might be spent, I think that the worst thing of all is that there isn't the foggiest idea on this side of the House as to what sums of money might be involved in the fund or funds established under 2(a).

It's also serious enough in our view that the corporation or agency should be defined, that the powers and duties should be given some definition, that the manner in which moneys might be paid out and the way in which they might be retrieved at a later date might be defined.

This is all so vague and so absolutely without any specific detail as to the kind of control and management which the government would exercise over these duties and sums of money that again, with great regret, much as we'd like to help the farmer, we feel in this party that the responsibility of the opposition doesn't stop at accepting your good intention, Mr. Minister. Our responsibility is to support…and make it very plain that sound, constructive, specific proposals will receive our support.

But in terms of subsections (a) to (g) in section 2, we simply cannot meet our responsibilities as representatives of the taxpayer in giving you, and I hate to keep using the same word, but it is blank-cheque legislation. If we approve of this, there is no restriction as to the sums of money which might be expended in a well-intentioned plan, but which might be catastrophic.

There may be bad management, there may be a lack of regulation, there may be all kinds of ways in which this money could be very badly spent. Then you would come back to this House in the spring, or perhaps next fall, and say well, I'm sorry gentlemen and ladies, but the plan didn't work very well. And we, as opposition Members, would be powerless to criticize if at this point in time we had given you a complete carte blanche to go ahead and do what, in your wisdom and good intention, you would be

[ Page 428 ]

empowered to do under section 2. So there's just no way that we can support this section of the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this section 2(a) goes to the very crux of the problem that we have with this. We have had this government say previously, "Trust us." And that's about all they're really saying here. This is a "Trust us" with the….

AN HON. MEMBER: Vote against it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're going to vote against it; we're going to have to. But we're explaining why we have to vote against it. You've written such bad legislation that there's no way it can be supported by responsible MLAs.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) may have an idea what this fund consists of. We have none in 2(a). He may have some idea how there are rules and procedures that are going to be established.

Certainly the Minister of Agriculture had no idea of what plan he'd bring forward, and he gave no indication of why it was necessary to have this legislation before such a plan was drawn up. Not a word has been said on that by him. He's said that he's going to consult with producer groups. There's nothing in the legislation about that, but that's apparently what he's going to do outside of this Act.

They're going to come up with the plan and then he's going to proceed. And yet, there's not a word about that in this particular Act. That's what we're really getting worried about.

We're asked to trust the government, we're asked, in this section 2(a), to give a complete blank cheque for we don't know, anything from $1 up to $500 million. We have no idea what it will be, no idea whatsoever how much money is going to be put into such a fund.

Surely it's possible in this type of legislation to be more specific than simply having an open-ended fund which has no upper limit whatsoever and of course, by contradistinction, has no lower limit, so the farmers would have some idea of what ballpark we're talking about.

We have in here prescribing rules and procedures respecting the maintenance of this fund, which may well be, of course, recovering moneys from farmers, as the Minister indicated the other day with his six cent apple example — half of the difference is going to be paid by the farmer, the farmer indeed would be pulling himself up by his own bootstraps by contributing 50 per cent of the fund which is designed to raise his income.

Well, if that's his plan, he really won't have that minimum price that the Minister kept on insisting that he might get, because he's contributing half of the subsidy to himself. Therefore there's no way he can raise up the price of the agricultural product to what the Minister said it would be.

Here we have the terms and conditions upon which the money is to be paid out also left unspecified, just not indicated to anyone. How on earth can a farmer know what he's getting or what he should be getting if it's entirely up to the Minister of Finance to designate how he's going to have this money paid out? Surely if we're dealing with joint programmes in particular, which may involve the agricultural producer as well as the government, there should be some indication in this area.

The rest of section 2, subsections (b) through to (g), have also tremendous numbers of problems. But I'd just like to ask the Minister, in particular the Minister of Finance, what ballpark figures we're talking about, what the drain on the provincial Treasury may be, and what type of programme he envisages in terms of rules and procedures, so that we can get some idea of how this particular fund, enormous though it may be or small though it may be, is going to be administered.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the question of the fund was first raised by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). The way in which he presents his argument is certainly much more difficult to turn aside than the straight political argument raised by some other Members.

Some Members may recall or may be aware, I suppose, rather than recall, of the negotiations with the federal government when we first entered into the crop insurance plan. At that time there were several routes that the province could have gone. One of the routes was that the province set up a fund with which to back the insurance plan, to make sure that the insurance plan would not go bankrupt. That was only one of the routes but it was the route that the provincial government chose to go at that time in its negotiations with the federal government.

From the beginning I said that this plan was flexible, not only to accommodate the needs of the farmers in the commodity groups, but also to accommodate any possible arrangements or negotiations that we might enter into with the federal government.

We don't know at this time whether they would propose whether this particular income assurance plan would also be guaranteed by a fund. It might not be necessary to set up a fund at all. Personally, I would prefer not to set up a fund. I would prefer to have the matter dealt with as a vote under estimates each year, the amount that was going to be contributed by the government, which is a better way I think of handling it, as we do where there's a crop insurance vote.

Now I say it's a better way. But we may find that in negotiations with the federal government that although we think it's a better way, they might think

[ Page 429 ]

it's not the better way and might insist that some other way be found.

Now what I'm really suggesting to you is that this is flexible legislation designed to accommodate the needs and to accommodate any arrangement that we might make with the federal government.

I appreciate the problems as raised: the fact that it is so flexible, so vague, if you like, and that it commits no amount of money and you're signing in effect a blank cheque. I can only suggest that it's flexible for a purpose today. By the time this legislature meets again, another session or the session after that, we will have had some opportunity to discuss what is happening with the federal government, perhaps to enter into arrangements with them and at that time would be in a better position to consider specific amendments. The legislation would be much more specific and would answer some of the true reservations, the honest reservations that are in the minds of some of the Members.

But at this time, in order to give us the maximum flexibility, the government is determined to go ahead with section 2 as is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there was a division in the committee; unfortunately, the committee Chairman neglected to bring it to your attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. committee Chairman please report to the House?

Did he ask leave that it be reported in the Journals of the House?

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
HUMAN TISSUE GIFT ACT

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill 43 intituled An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 43 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present the reworded motion that you asked for on a previous sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: You mean the motion in your name on the order paper?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. There's very little change in the wording.

MR. SPEAKER: That's motion 6.

HON. MR. COCKE: There's very little change. We've changed the wording so that it responds to …

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that what you wish the House to do — and I presume it would have to be first of all with leave of the House — is that you withdraw the motion as it stands on the order paper, motion 6, and substitute therefore the motion that you have presented to me to read to the House. Why ask the House leave to do this? I should read the motion out…

HON. MR. COCKE: I second your motion, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: …to see whether the House would grant leave. I think it's only fair to the House to know what it's doing.

"That this House supports the proposal of the government to provide up to 0.25 million for the building, staffing and maintaining of medical facilities for rehabilitation, care, and development of Vietnamese children which proposal in principle was unanimously supported by this House on February 14, 1973, and considers it desirable that moneys aforesaid which may be forthcoming from individuals and groups, be utilized for this purpose, and for the provision of personnel and/or materiel in accordance with the suggestions developed by a special group of legislators and representatives of interested groups referred to in the resolution of this House, dated April 18, 1973."

That is the proposed substitute motion. Is leave granted that this be put before the House at this time?

[ Page 430 ]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, through you, if he could tell us if we were going on to private Members' business tomorrow?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is private Members' day. We will start out in good, traditional, British parliamentary fashion with private Members' bills and proceed from there to adjourned debates and second readings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Motions, too?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't think motions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What about the Vietnam motion?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We just passed it. Mr. Speaker, we'll deal with public bills in the hands of private Members, and then after that we'll go on to second readings.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): None of them are printed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's why we'll deal with them. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.