[ Page 4421 ]

CONTENTS

Routine procedure

Oral questions

Teacher–school trustee dispute. Mr. Bennett — 4421

Possible lay-off of B.C. Rail employees. Mr. L.A. Williams — 4421

Tabling of rent increase report. Mr. Wallace — 4421

Personnel involved in ICBC land purchases Mr. Phillips — 4422

Gabriola Island ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 4423

New Gottesman Newsprint Contract. Mr. Gibson — 4423

Reopening of YMCA building for housing. Mrs. Jordan — 4424

Commercial advertising on B.C. Ferries. Mr. Morrison — 4424

Canadian publications on B.C. Ferries. Mr. McClelland — 4424

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill 155). Second reading.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4425

Mr. Schroeder — 4428

Mr. Wallace — 4430

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4435

Mr. Gibson — 4436

Mr. Richter — 4441

Mr. Lewis — 4445

Mr. Gardom — 4448

Mr. Smith — 4450

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, visiting the Legislature today from the City of Revelstoke are two long-time residents, Mr. and Mrs. Parker. Mr. Parker is the father of the Mayor of Revelstoke, Sid Parker. Mrs. Parker is the mother of a sitting MLA in this House, Doug Kelly from Omineca.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two good Tories who are seated on the floor of the House….

Interjections.

Mr. Wallace: As far as I know, they're going to keep in their seats…. Mr. Michael Meighen who is the national president of the Progressive Conservative Association and who is the grandson of Arthur Meighen, who was Prime Minister in the 1920s, also Mr. Ian Green who is a special assistant to our national leader, Mr. Robert Stanfield. I'd like the House to welcome them.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a group of….

Interjections. (Laughter.)

Mr. Curtis:…students who are with us today. Sorry to disappoint the House, Mr. Speaker.

These students are from Parklands Secondary School on the northern part of the Saanich Peninsula, and they're accompanied by Mr. Cross. They're in the gallery and they will be observing our deliberations for about an hour.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to bid a special welcome to a number of students who braved the waters of Georgia Strait today to come to see this House in action — a number from Point Grey High School in the great riding of Vancouver–Point Grey. Their motto, Mr. Speaker, is Honor Ante Honores — honour before honours — which I think might be of some very good advice to the cabinet Ministers when they next consider some of their splendiferous advertising programmes.

Oral questions.

TEACHER-SCHOOL TRUSTEE DISPUTE

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader Of The Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education: due to the interruption in the educational services to some of the students of this province, due to the dispute, or the inability of the teachers and the school trustees to get together, could the Minister advise this House what action her office is taking, or she is taking, to bring the two parties together?

Hon. E. E. Dailly (Minister Of Education): To the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker: I am having a meeting in my office tonight at 6 o'clock with the representative of the B.C. Teachers Federation, and following that, with the B.C. School Trustees Association at which I hope to have a report from both of them, I will decide then what course of action it will be necessary for me to take. Whether I find myself in a position of taking some action or not, will depend on the report that I receive from those groups tonight.

Mr. Bennett: Supplemental then. Will the Minister then advise this House tomorrow if she intends, if they're unable to get together, to take direct action?

Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry, that question would be ruled out, I think. It's speculative.

POSSIBLE LAY-OFF
OF B.C. RAIL EMPLOYEES

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): It was yesterday's question and I've forgotten already. (Laughter.) No, I remember.

To the Premier as president of the British Columbia Railway: if the dispute currently progressing with the shopcraft industries results in a general shutdown of the B.C. Rail operation, will those employees who are not directly participants in the dispute be laid off?

Mr. Speaker: I think the question is speculative the way it's been asked. It's really a hypothetical question and it obviously anticipates events.

TABLING OF RENT
INCREASE REPORT

Mr. Wallace: I'd like to ask the Attorney-General: will the report of Professor Cragg's investigation into rent increases be tabled in the Legislature before second reading of Bill 169?

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, that's asking about something that

[ Page 4422 ]

might happen in the future.

An Hon. Member: Oh, come on Alec!

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: He has submitted preliminary reports; his final report has just been received. I haven't even had a chance to read that. To what extent it varies from the earlier reports or press comment, I don't know, but I would think that all information should be available to Members during the course of the passage of that bill, so that they can make a judicious decision on this very important matter.

Mr. Wallace: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can I take the Minister's last comment then, that he will make available to the House the same information as he used to base the decision regarding the rent increases? Otherwise intelligent debate is very much impossible from this side of the House without that kind of basic information.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Well, even with it, it may be speculative as to…. (Laughter.)

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney-General, do I take his reply to mean that he introduced the legislation yesterday without the final report of the gentleman in question?

Mr. Speaker: I think that also has already been answered.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No, it hasn't.

Mr. Speaker: You said: "I take it," therefore you're coming to a conclusion from his statement, and that appears to be what happened.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Well, the answer is yes, but after preliminary reports, after long meetings face to face, examinations, after calling in other economists and experts in this field. So in terms of the final thing in its final form, the answer is yes. It was not available to me until…. It has just arrived.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Will the Hon. Attorney-General table the report from Clarkson and Gordon, chartered accountants, on the same subject?

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I'll consider that because that again is something that has just arrived.

PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN
ICBC LAND PURCHASE NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Hon. Minister of Transportation and Communication in charge of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I'd like to ask the Minister if it was employees of ICBC or civil servants from the Department of Public Works who negotiated the land purchases where the claim centres for ICBC were constructed.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister Of Transport And Communications): It seems to me I answered this fairly fully once previously, but my recollection was that Johnson Associates, I think, were involved in the negotiations for land purchase. I remember I made a fairly lengthy report on Johnson Associates. There may have been some Department of Public Works people involved, I couldn't answer that directly.

Mr. Phillips: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was it employees from the Department of Public Works or architects hired by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia who designed and let the contracts for the construction of these same claims centres?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, the architectural work was done within the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and the contracts were let by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Mr. Phillips: Final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Minister if the cost of construction for these claim centres was paid for out of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, or was it paid for by the Department of Public Works. And if it was paid for by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, is it included in the estimated $40,283,000 capital expenditures estimated in the report from the Insurance Corporation as of July?

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, which question do you wish answered first?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that they were included in the capital costs that were shown in the annual report tabled in this House in this session, and they will be shown in the annual report tabled in this House at the next session.

Mr. Phillips: Then the Minister does agree that the startup costs are going to be in the vicinity of $60 million.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I can't answer those questions at all; they're purely hypothetical. At no time did I make a report in July.

[ Page 4423 ]

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Members that you should not really seek information on matters that are set forth in public documents that are available in this House…. . .

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That's right.

Mr. Speaker:…and available in all the reports of public corporations.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: And he's not quoting from any report I made either.

Mr. Phillips: On a point of order, I can hardly ask questions of documents which have not to date been tabled in this House, so it's very difficult for me to ask. But it is certainly proper for me to ask questions of the Minister so that the public can know about their Insurance Corporation. The Minister has said time and time again: "It's the people's corporation."

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, I think the Hon. Member was asking questions which are obviously ones set out in public documents at the moment.

Mr. Phillips: Well, then, I'll ask a further question, Mr. Speaker. What are the startup costs estimated to be for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to date?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I haven't the figures to date. I've already informed you. I've tabled an annual report; there will be a further annual report. And I would remind you, Mr. Member, that the Premier has given a commitment to the public accounts committee as to what will happen as soon as the year ends. You'll get the information. You may not like it, but you'll get it.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker….

Mr. Speaker: Let someone else have the floor, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

GABRIOLA ISLAND
FERRY TERMINAL

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) with respect to British Columbia Ferries and the Gabriola Island ferry terminal. A number of weeks have passed since the Minister was last quoted on this subject. I believe, if he was quoted correctly, at that time he felt that one of four sites on Gabriola Island would be employed for the new terminal.

Can the Minister inform the House if he or his department is further along in planning and design of that location?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: You're quoting from an erroneous Daily Colonist story. Mr. Member, you'll recollect that I made public. a report to the regional district which advocated one of four sites. That's still the situation. The whole matter is now in the hands of the Environment and Land Use Committee, and I'm waiting to hear from the Environment and Land Use Committee before any decision can be made.

Mr. Curtis: Is there a time frame within which this work will be undertaken? Do you have a target date in your department for completion of design and start of construction for that terminal?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, we cannot start design or construction until after we've received the report from the Environment and Land Use Committee. Therefore, until we get that report, we can't put any target date into our….

Mr. Curtis: And on the other side of that route — the mainland — can the Minister inform the House if any firm decision has been reached there with respect to a new terminal to ease Horseshoe Bay?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, As far as I know that's in the hands of the Environment and Land Use Committee too.

NEW GOTTESMAN NEWSPRINT
CONTRACT

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. During the Minister's estimates he advised the House that a new contract was being negotiated with Gottesman International. I wonder if he could tell us if that has now been concluded.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister Of Lands, Forests And Water Resources): There have been modifications, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gibson: Now that there are new arrangements in effect, I wonder if the Minister would table the contract now that the commercial confidentiality is past.

Hon. Mr. Williams: I will take that matter under advisement, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4424 ]

REOPENING OF YWCA
BUILDING FOR HOUSING

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Speaking of the acute housing shortage, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Human Resources.

In view of the fact that the Minister virtually pulled the plug on the YWCA at the north end of the Granville Street bridge in Vancouver and closed it, and there are 15 to 20 women a day knocking on the doors seeking accommodation, and the building is standing empty doing nothing, would the Minister open this building on an emergency basis so that it can be used for accommodation on a three-month lease basis so there could be some security for those operating the building?

Hon. N. Levi (Minister Of Human Resources): Taken as notice.

COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING
ON B.C. FERRIES

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Has the Minister or any person within the B.C. Ferry Authority advised any people within the hotel and motel industry that brochures will no longer be displayed on B.C. Ferries? If so, why?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: He's a chocolate bar. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Probably, probably.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, no. (Laughter.) I was answering your friend (Mr. Phillips) in the front row. He's pretty hot stuff since he moved into the front row.

Mr. Speaker, in all probability someone within the ferries department has advised the hotel and motel owners that brochures will no longer be carried on the ferry system. I was advised of that a week or two ago.

Mr. Morrison: Could the Minister then advise us what the specific policy will be regarding advertising on the ferries — not just theirs but all advertising? Do you have a specific policy?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: The policy until now has been that no commercial enterprise be allowed to advertise other than motels and hotels. That has been the policy.

Mr. Morrison: Now you're eliminating them.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Yes. We've been under continuous pressure from other commercial enterprises to allow brochures for this, that and every other thing. When you say, "Well, we don't allow commercial enterprises to advertise," they say, "Well, the motels are." It was just getting so large and there was so much demand for every variety of advertising, it was impossible to keep up to it.

CANADIAN PUBLICATIONS
ON B.C. FERRIES

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): On the same subject as applies on the ferries. Would the Minister advise us whether or not there's also a policy being developed of discrimination against Canadian publications?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, as a matter of fact, a complete reverse. It was always my instructions not only to favour Canadian publications but to favour British Columbia publications.

Mr. McClelland: Well, is the Minister aware that at least one Canadian-British Columbian publication, the B.C. Horseman magazine, has been withdrawn from the ferries and has been turned over to a local distributor in Victoria who has a policy of not handling Canadian publications. So there's one British Columbia publication which has been on the ferries for about a year and which has now been withdrawn.

I'd ask you if you are aware that this local distributor does not carry very many Canadian publications. If the ferries go through that distributor, then Canadian and British Columbia will, in fact, be discriminated against.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Well, I think, my friend, there aren't very many Canadian publications anyway, but that's due to other reasons.

Mr. McClelland: That has nothing to do with it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I've already indicated to the House what my instructions have been. If the Member would like to send me over the material he has, I will certainly check it out.

[ Page 4425 ]

Mr. McClelland: I've just told you about that.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Send it over.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister Of Education): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Adjourned debate on Bill 165.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING
(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT
(continued)

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): We had a lengthy debate on the need to stand this debate over yesterday, which I'm pleased to say was defeated because I think we should get on with the task of considering the extent to which this government has seen fit to respond in Bill 165 to the needs of the agricultural community and to the consumers in the Province of British Columbia. I was frankly sorry to hear what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) had to say yesterday in his contribution to this debate concerning the prospect that the consumer interest would be served with this legislation.

When he engaged briefly and with some heat in the debate to stand the bill aside for six months, he made it quite clear that the bill has been available to marketing boards for examination for something like eight months. At least he said it was available to those marketing boards who wished to take the advantage of the opportunity of making contributions towards this legislation.

I find this to be of singular interest, Mr. Speaker, because I'm not aware as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture that the Minister or his department offered to the consumers or to the producers or to the marketing boards, or to anybody else in British Columbia, the opportunity of making contributions to changes in the natural products marketing legislation in this province. I trust that when the Minister has the opportunity of again standing on his feet in this debate and closing it, he will be able to satisfy me as to the extent that he did make known his department's decision to proceed with amending legislation.

During his first remarks in the debate he indicated quite clearly that he was satisfied with the bill, and he was satisfied with the arguments that he was presenting in support of the bill. In the course of those arguments he said: "I don't deny that there should be some consumer interest in marketing legislation." And he urged that there be more consumer support for marketing board legislation.

For one, I would like to know how he could possibly involve consumer interest and consumer support in Bill 165 when in no way has he indicated that such legislation was being contemplated by his department and when he has provided no forum whereby any person who has the consumers' interest at heart could make representations to the Minister or his staff as to what this bill should include.

He says that the motivation for the legislation was to give bargaining power to producer groups in the province. Bargaining power. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that with the experience we have had with marketing boards in British Columbia, what the legislation should be doing is giving some bargaining power to the consumers in this province. The consumers, when they go to the marketplace to acquire those agricultural products which are regulated in this province, have to pay the price or go home with their shopping bags empty.

Where is the bargaining that takes place? What opportunity is there for bargaining as far as the consumer is concerned in this particular area? It's not like labour or management bargaining. It's just pay up or stop eating. Some bargain.

The legislation, as I said yesterday, is really only a rehash of what we already have on the statute books in this province. The legislation in section 2 sets out specifically the purpose and the intent of the Act, and there is nothing in the stated purpose and intent of the Act to indicate any concern on the part of the Minister or of the government that the interests of the consumers of British Columbia should be promoted. There's no question that as a Member of the agricultural committee…and I think that I could say without fear of contradiction that there is unanimity in that committee that we want the farmers in the Province of British Columbia to enjoy an appropriate return for their investment and their labour. I don't think there's anybody in the House that disagrees with that statement.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) said when she engaged in this debate yesterday, that's not the way in which marketing boards in British Columbia have functioned in the past. The consumers' interest has been ignored. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services said that some of them — meaning marketing boards — "have not taken into consideration the public interest. They have not been subjected to market pressures. They have not taken into consideration — in fact they have flouted — the consumer interest."

That's a very, very harsh but, nonetheless, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, accurate assessment of the performance of some of the marketing boards in British Columbia. Yet there is not spelled out in this legislation in any way a policy or a statement of purpose or intent which will change that situation in British Columbia.

I admit, Mr. Speaker, that we have the mechanism, in the new provincial board to be appointed by the

[ Page 4426 ]

government, which might permit the control of marketing boards so that they would conduct themselves more in the public interest. We have the mechanism; the words are there. But, Mr. Speaker, we did not have from the Minister of Agriculture, whose bill this is, any clear statement of his policy or of the policy of the government which would satisfy me — that in establishing the provincial board it would carry out government policy which had the consumers' interest at heart. As a matter of fact, just the opposite, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture made it quite clear in his remarks that this marketing legislation, this superboard, in its control of marketing boards of British Columbia, would have as its sole, overriding responsibility the assurance that the producing segment, namely the farmer, would receive his proper return for his effort.

This, Mr. Speaker, must be without consideration of the interest of the rest of the community. Yet startlingly enough, the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services indicated yesterday that she supported this legislation. She supported this legislation without that clear statement of policy, without that clear indication from the Minister of Agriculture, that there was going to be anything different than what we have had before. That Minister went at some length to detail the problems which have been currently publicized with respect to egg marketing in Canada.

She said that Manitoba eggs were coming into the Province of British Columbia 10 cents a dozen cheaper than B.C. eggs, and doing very well in the marketplace. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that they would do very well in the marketplace. But this bill and this legislation, because of its striking similarity to legislation currently on the statute books, is designed to prevent just that from happening, to keep Manitoba eggs out of British Columbia — and to do so for the sole purpose of protecting egg producers in B.C.

Now I think, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with the Hon. Minister of Agriculture that too much attention is being paid and focused upon this particular problem of egg marketing. But it happens to be a clear example of the failure of the marketing board concept.

There is nothing in this legislation to indicate any change. In fact, we're getting from the Minister of Agriculture what we've had from Members of this government time after time over recent months: the suggestion that, somehow or other, we in this House and the people of British Columbia should trust them. "We're establishing a superboard and we're going to appoint all the Members to that board. Trust us to appoint members who somehow or other will carry out a policy that will be in the best interest of the producer and the consumer;" and "trust us to do this," Mr. Speaker, "when the Minister who is to have the responsibility for the administration of the superboard, the Minister of Agriculture, has clearly indicated that his policy is prepared to make the consumer interest secondary to that of the producer segment."

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister had really done a job, he would have ensured, before bringing this particular bill on the floor of the House, that he received input not only from producers and marketing boards, as I said earlier, but from consumers, so that he could have given a statement of intent and purpose which clearly indicated to the people of British Columbia and to this superboard that it was the intention of this Legislature, regardless of what government policy might be, that that superboard in the conduct of its responsibilities would consider the interests of the entire community. That surely must be our responsibility here.

We are not a lobby for the producers, and we are not a lobby for the consumers. The people of British Columbia are entitled to be served equally by all Members of this House. In the legislation that we pass we must serve the interests of all British Columbians equally, and this we do not do in Bill 165.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is going to perpetuate a situation which has unfortunately arisen in the Province of British Columbia, whereby the producer and the consumer, the producer and the transporter of the product, the producer and the person who stores the product, the producer and the retailer, the retailer and the consumer, will continue to be in conflict. Controversy will continue to rage in this province because of Bill 165 and the inept draughtsmanship of the Minister of Agriculture and the officials of his department.

That is why I suggested yesterday, and I renew my suggestion and my challenge to the Minister today, that upon the completion of the second reading debate of this legislation, he send this bill for deliberation to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture or, alternatively, to a special committee of this House for section-by-section consideration with the opportunity to receive representations from all persons interested in and affected by this legislation, so that we may bring back recommendations for its amendment and the production of legislation which will more appropriately serve all of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer Services in the course of her remarks made reference to the Forbes report, suggesting that it was one of a number of reports. What I can't understand is how those reports could be in existence, how they could be available to the Minister of Agriculture, and yet how he could bring forth legislation which so clearly ignores the summaries and conclusions reached in the Forbes report and those other documents which deal

[ Page 4427 ]

with the same subject.

It is quite clear that the Minister has absolutely ignored the Forbes recommendations. I wish to deal with one of the issues raised by Mr. Forbes, and very clearly delineated in his report, as to the consequences of the present system we have — that is, the restrictions that marketing boards place upon production. They do it through the quota system. The boards, in effect, give to certain individuals in our community a monopoly to produce foodstuffs.

If I may pause for a moment, Mr. Speaker…. When you consider the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday in talking about the starving people in Bangladesh, when you consider what we all know happens in our own grocery stores when our senior citizens, and those on fixed, low incomes go and attempt to buy food for their families, how can we possibly support legislation which will perpetuate a system whereby producers raise foodstuffs on a monopoly basis, restricted as to how much they can grow, how much they can produce, how much they can transport and make available to the market? That's what this legislation does.

But it has another consequence which runs counter to even the best interests of the producer segment, and it is this vicious quota system. When you give somebody a monopoly, a quota right to produce — and I don't care whether it is eggs or broiler chickens or what it may be — if you can only produce so many and no more, then not only do you lose the efficiencies which can come from scale, but you begin to assign a value to this right to produce, a value to this right that is given to you by the marketing board which is established as a scheme under legislation of this province.

If you move out of the business and find someone to acquire your farm, your manufacturing plant — in the case of egg producers that is what it is: a manufacturing plant, a very efficient one — you find someone to buy your manufacturing plant, and along with it you sell your quota. That only means that the person who acquires your manufacturing plant has to pay a little more for the quota. It becomes an added cost for him to go into the business and, therefore, an added cost that he expects to recoup out of what he produces and, therefore, an added factor to be taken into account by marketing boards in determining what price the farmer should get for his product in order to ensure that he gets a proper return on his cost.

So the marketing board system, which limits production by the establishment of quotas, in turn accelerates the cost of the product itself. And the wheel turns one time further, Mr. Speaker, because when the costs of production rise for other reasons — and let's take eggs — it takes more to feed the chickens. The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) certainly knows that this is the case. It costs more to feed your chickens to produce the eggs. The marketing board says, quite obviously, that you have got to get more for your eggs.

You increase the price of the eggs and, lo and behold, do you know what happens, Mr. Speaker? The evidence is quite clear. You also increase the value of the quota. So as the price goes up, the quota becomes more valuable, and somebody who acquires the quota has got to charge more in order to get their return; and it goes on and on under the marketing board system.

There is nothing in this legislation to indicate that the government proposes to stop those practices. Oh, we are given the right of appeal. I must make a comment about the right of appeal.

Any person in the Province of British Columbia who is dissatisfied with any action or order of any of the marketing boards which shall be established under this legislation has the right to appeal to the marketing board, to the superboard. It's easy to give the right of appeal. But, Mr. Speaker, there are no guidelines in this legislation to be given by this Legislature to this superboard as to the attitude they should take when dealing with any matter of appeal. If the appeal comes from a consumer group against the activities of a marketing board, what are the guidelines? What approach is the superboard going to take to that appeal?

If they read clearly what the Hon. Minister of Agriculture has said in Hansard, and they take that as their guideline, then the consumer organization can expect to get pretty brief treatment from this right of appeal, because the policy laid down in the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture is that the producer is the one who is to be supported by this legislation.

Conflict with the consumer; the producer wins. That's what we've had before.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe that the farming segment in British Columbia and the rest of Canada requires the support of all the people in this country. I happen to believe that there is grave danger if the farmers leave the land because it is no longer worth their while to continue in an occupation which is a difficult one, that we will all suffer.

I happen to believe, in light of national and international concern being raised about the ability of this world to feed its growing population, that the farming community should be supported. I happen to believe that we need orderly marketing.

I happen to agree with what the Minister said in his press release on December 1 — that marketing boards have the potential to be an effective instrument of agricultural policy. I believe they do have the potential, but, Mr. Speaker, the legislation which establishes those boards, if it is going to make it possible for those boards to realize that potential, must contain provisions different from what we have in Bill 165.

[ Page 4428 ]

As was said yesterday by many speakers, Bill 165 is a voice of the '30s coming to us in the '70s.

An Hon. Member: It's a first in Canada — come on!

Mr. L.A. Williams: Is the voice of the '30s coming to us in the '70s? I think it is time that the Department of Agriculture modernized its whole thinking with respect to marketing boards and the potential they have for agriculture in British Columbia and Canada.

I think that we can take this bill in committee and build out of it something which will really be a step forward for the producers and the consumers. But if the Minister insists on pressing forward with this legislation, if he is prepared to send it to a committee of this whole House and deal with it as other legislation of great significance to the people of British Columbia has been dealt with in the past, if the government is prepared to use its majority to ram Bill 165 down the throats of the people of British Columbia, then it will be a retrogressive step not only for the farmers but also for the consumers of B.C.

The controversies will continue to rage and the difficulties in which the farming community finds itself in today will be multiplied, not lessened. It's difficult to support the policy of this legislation and the principles which so clearly stand out in this legislation — and I haven't talked about the dictatorial rights that are being given to certain segments of the people of this province. Others will deal with that.

But the Minister has the opportunity of giving to this Legislature the power to do something worthwhile, and he can only fulfill that responsibility if this matter is handled appropriately in committee.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, in the principle of Bill 165, the Natural Products Marketing Act, I see in study of the bill a clear-cut case of conflict of interest if this bill is left in the hands of this administration, not because of the philosophy of the administration, but because of its track record. I'd like in these next few moments to substantiate that statement — a severe case of conflict of interest.

In the first instance, the bill establishes a three-level marketing device which depends on the lowest level for all of the input, for the initiation of the programmes that are supposed to make marketing in British Columbia work. It's the commissions who are supposed to be the idea people; and without referring to any section, the word "initiate" occurs over and over again but only as it pertains to the responsibilities and duties of a marketing commission.

Then we move up from the level of the marketing commission to the marketing board — the general marketing board. The language changes immediately when it comes to the area of the responsibility of the marketing board. And these are the kinds of words that are used: to regulate; to regulate production; to regulate packaging; and to regulate distribution. Nothing said there about initiating programmes. The key word is "regulate".

There are others: to determine; to determine grade or class; to license; to collect; to exempt; to cancel; to inspect; to fix prices; to authorize. I like these: to search; to seize; to delegate; and to make regulation. This is the second level of this marketing device.

Once again, the feeling is left with the marketing boards that they do have some say in the direction of marketing in British Columbia. The responsibility of regulation is left with them.

But then we move to the third level of this marketing device, and there isn't a really good name for it — I've heard it called the superboard, but the bill simply calls it the British Columbia marketing board. Look at the language that's involved in the responsibilities of the superboard. Its responsibilities are: to appoint; to appoint boards — even the boards that I have already mentioned.

The superboard appoints the boards of the next level, Mr. Speaker. Not only do they appoint the personnel who are on the boards, they appoint the very existence of the board itself. Then in addition they approve or disapprove of the schemes — schemes that have filtered up by some mystic process of osmosis from the lowest level, from the commission. And they've been regulated, and licensed, and determined, and exempted, and cancelled, and inspected, and authorized by the next level. By some miracle it has arrived at the superboard level and there they are approved or disapproved.

There, at the higher level, the Members will be interested to know that the existence and function of the marketing board is authorized. The regulations, which the boards believed was their responsibility, suddenly are foisted into the superboard responsibilities, and they authorize the regulation. It is the superboard that has the responsibility and the privilege of asking for a plebiscite to find out whether or not the public is really in favour of the action of the boards, further diluting the responsibility of the marketing board.

I find further that the superboard's responsibility is "to terminate" or "to annul" — terminate not just schemes and plans, but to terminate the marketing boards at the lower level themselves — and further "to impose penalties."

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Why is it necessary for me to talk about the various responsibilities of these boards? It is because it is tin these responsibilities that the conflict eventually

[ Page 4429 ]

What powers does the superboard, the British Columbia marketing board, really have? It has the power to create itself and to appoint its own members. That is, this appointment made through the cabinet. No guidelines are laid down in the bill as to the basics for that appointment, so the cabinet makes the appointment to create a superboard that has the powers, Mr. Speaker, which I have just outlined for you. It is very clear, at least in my opinion, that it is the producers who must have representation on that superboard, otherwise the jurisdiction is separated from the producer. The producer does not have the input and does not even have the ability to pass the expertise on to the superboard.

But where does the conflict occur? The conflict occurs in here: the producers must have representation on the superboard. Who are the producers? Well, first of all, you have the individual farmer, or the individual producer. He not only deserves representation on that board, but I must insist that he has representation on the superboard.

Then who else is there that comes under the category of a producer? It is the cooperative farmer; not just the individual, but the cooperative farmer. Then you have the farm corporations, and in addition to these, if we want to control the flow and the distribution of product entirely, we must also give consideration to import, which is really a federal responsibility, but would have to be given some input into this superboard control otherwise we wouldn't be controlling all of the marketed product, but we would only be controlling a part of it. So the imports become a part of that group called producers.

But lo and behold if this government, this administration, if the New Democratic Party philosophy is left in power, in this list of producers comes the provincial government itself. As a result, the provincial government, who through its cabinet appoints all of the individuals on the superboard, then has a clumsy position in its appointment, it has a fantastic responsibility, and it has a direct conflict of interest. And you say to me, Mr. Speaker, how does this conflict work?

I notice that in the definition of product, any "natural product" is defined as an agricultural product, a product of the forests, a product of the sea, lake or river, or any food or drink that derives from these natural products. The House is already aware that this government has already engaged itself in the business of ranching, in the business of poultry, and in the business, certainly, of forest products.

An Hon. Member: And wine.

Mr. Schroeder: Here, then, is the conflict, Mr. Speaker: one producer — that is, one fifth of the number of producers that I have already mentioned to you — one producer appoints all the representation to all the boards, including the superboard. This is dangerous in the light of the statements that were made some time back by the Hon. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) who said this, and I refer to a reported speech, when he talked about information that pertains to marketing. He said simply this: "Publicly-owned firms should have access on a priority basis," and he cited some examples: "If rail cars are required by Can-Cel, the province should provide them. If chips or timber are required by Kootenay Forest Products, then the government should allocate them."

Get a load of this: "If new technology or marketing information becomes available through the efforts of government sponsored research, then that technology and that information should be made available exclusively to publicly-owned industries." Do you see the conflict? Here we have a superboard, having been appointed by cabinet, who through one of the members of the party insists that if marketing information or expertise is available, then it will not be disseminated to the entire marketing board, but preference will be given to the publicly-owned sector. As a result, there is a fantastic conflict which I don't think the government wants to see in this bill.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister Of Public Works): You're against….

Mr. Schroeder: By the government, I mean the people.

You have special treatment for government-operated concerns as regards expertise, as regards transportation, as regards technology and as regards marketing information. All other operations take second place, if we are to take this as an example, and I must remind you that forestry products are one of the products that comes under this marketing scheme. It is in forest products that the Member for Port Alberni clearly stated to us that special treatment — preferential treatment — would be given to the public sector.

The conflict is clearly there. Here's how it works: the marketing commission comes up with a marketing plan; the board which is just over it sets up a marketing scheme; the superboard adopts the scheme to its own advantage, being an appointee of the provincial government. This bill gives the power to terminate or annul any scheme or to dissolve the responsible marketing board itself. As a result, the opportunity for conflict of interest is clearly there. I say that the marketing board at this superboard level is entirely unnecessary and gives to this government, particularly in the hands of the NDP philosophy, gives to this government, who is already dilly-dallying in the production itself, gives to them the opportunity to be accused of conflict of interest. As a result, we have to oppose the bill.

[ Page 4430 ]

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): Working very hard.

Mr. Schroeder: Deny the fact, though.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): It sounds as though you need medical help today, Mr. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: You need medical help.

Deputy Speaker: Almost over it.

Mr. Wallace: We discussed whether this bill should be reviewed in six months time yesterday, and voted against the suggestion for the very reason, at least in this party, that it wouldn't be any better a bill in six months, or six years, for that matter. I would like to correct an implication left by the Minister yesterday that because we're unhappy with the bill, we're opposed to marketing boards. This is the popular approach that is often taken in debate in this House — that because you're against the bill, you're against each and every principle of the bill.

I would like to make it very plain that we are very much in favour of measures which will bring about orderly marketing of food products, in particular. But since food is such a vital commodity, if not the most vital commodity in our life, then there has to be the widest possible participation in any marketing procedures by all segments of our society. I was somewhat disappointed yesterday by the Minister's — again an implication — that because people are not worried about the starvation in Bangladesh, our marketing system can't be all that bad. I think he was confusing two completely different issues.

I certainly think it's nothing less than a national disgrace that this country, claiming to be a middle power, claiming to be a country that believes in non-violence and believes in the welfare and the development of less fortunate countries — for whatever reason, bureaucratic bungling or otherwise — should be destroying 28 million eggs when the rest of the world is starving. And I didn't like the light-hearted way in which that particular point was dismissed yesterday by the Minister.

Two wrongs never make a right. Just because there are some valid points in explaining the difficulties of marketing eggs in this country, I think that it is nothing less than a disastrous insult to the human race that a country with the wealth, and the talent, and the know-how, and the technology, and the people, should so lightly dismiss that tragic example of the waste of food. All the Minister seemed to do in relation to the destruction of calves was to say, "Well, they don't have the right to strike." Once again, Mr. Speaker, I think we're confusing issues.

I know very well that those who carried out these actions would not wish to do so when they were focusing attention on the fact that the marketing of meat is inadequate and inefficient and has many flaws. But to slaughter calves when there is starvation in the world is not defensible on any grounds, anymore than the pursuit of violence in the course of one's objectives. I think, if there's nothing else that this debate should have brought to the forefront, it is the fact that this is not a provincial problem and it is not a national problem — it's a world-wide problem.

When one thinks back a year or two and remembers that the federal government paid farmers not to grow wheat. We know that the population is increasing, and when we know that food demands all around the world are destined inevitably to increase, and we brag about the technological advances in this so-called global village — and if ever there was an ironic phrase that is bandied around this country but never really acted upon, it is the global village — I just have to ask: are we zeroing in effectively, or on a wide enough basis, on the problems that are contained in this bill.

I have come to the sorry conclusion by saying that we're being extremely parochial, extremely selfish and, frankly, rather indifferent to problems far beyond the local problems of marketing eggs or turkeys or oysters, or anything else in British Columbia.

I'm trying to make these points to show that there's every reason in the world why there should be some orderly marketing in British Columbia. But the problem goes far beyond that. It goes far beyond seeking this kind of solution, which simply sets up one more type of bureaucratic administration to solve a problem which I think the facts and some of the incidents which have been mentioned in this debate show very clearly the need for something far more detailed and investigative in nature than just another piece of legislation to set up another superboard to solve problems which, as I say, are obviously way beyond just the local needs of the marketing situation in British Columbia.

I would like to repeat that we must have some attempt through the vehicle of marketing boards to provide fair play. We talk about a fair return to the producers. I think that Professor Forbes, however he may have been maligned by speeches in this House yesterday, made one point painfully clear and logical — that it has to be fair not only to the farmer, but to the producer and the consumer. I think that while this bill is inadequate, and since we oppose it for a variety of reasons that I'll touch on very briefly, above all other things this bill does not even define the kind of solution which the Minister apparently believes in. There are press reports by the square yard talking about the interests of the producers and the consumers and the degree to which this issue must be treated on a basis beyond simply the farmer.

In the bill there's absolutely no definition at all

[ Page 4431 ]

giving a guarantee in the bill as to who the consumers and other interested parties will be, how they will be chosen or what particular number out of the 10 will, in fact, represent interests other than the producer interest. The Minister has made the point on more than one occasion — and I respect his position — that the aim of this government is to produce for the farmer or the egg producer, or whoever is in the situation of producing food, a fairer return for his efforts. I think this is a reasonable goal, Mr. Speaker, just as long as we don't finish up with artificially inflated prices over which it appears the consumer has little or no control whatever.

Mr. L.A. Williams: None at all.

Mr. Wallace: "None at all," as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has said.

I think it's interesting to put into the record a statement that appeared in an editorial in The Vancouver Sun on July 28. It just points out that Canadian farm earnings are expected to top $4 billion this year — that's referring to the year 1974 — an increase of 186 per cent in the money going into farmers' pockets since 1970.

Total labour income…. I'm comparing it with labour income which will also be quoted as gross. The Financial Times reports that total labour income over that same period rose a more modest 37 per cent.

Statistics Canada reports that during the first five months of this year cash farm income in B.C. reached $125 million — up from $90 million in the corresponding period in 1973. That is an increase of 40 per cent. It may well be, and I'm sure there's some validity to the argument, that the farmers are doing a bit of catching up in regard to their income. But I think that….

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): How about the costs?

Mr. Wallace: Yes, the costs have gone up also. But the costs have gone up for everybody who's doing business. The point I'm trying to make is that we may have reached the point where farmers have been given a much fairer return than they were receiving in years gone by. But the system under which their products are being marketed may well provide for continuing manipulation of prices to the serious distress of the consumer, and particularly the consumer of a low income.

We've often talked about the citizens' right to health care, which we all agree upon — that one should not be denied health care because one cannot afford it. But even health care surely has to come second to food. If you can't afford to buy food, then you can't likely even manage to survive. Of course, one leads to another: poor nutrition leads to poor health. And that's an added cost for the province.

An Hon. Member: We should have food care as well as Medicare.

Mr. Wallace: Well, that may be not such a bad idea: we should have food care along with Medicare and Pharmacare. But seriously, Mr. Speaker….

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister Of Agriculture): Farmer care?

Mr. Wallace: Not farmer care, Pharmacare. I think that farmer care is in good hands; it's in the hands of the farmer. That's one of the reasons that on this side of the House we wonder if it doesn't make it reasonable to question whether people have complete control of their own capacity to create their own income by selling a product through such a monopolistic approach as marketing where only farmers are on the board. One has to wonder whether to even the best motivated farmer that would create a conflict of interest and a tendency to manipulate price.

The Consumers Association of Canada, I think, put it very well. As the editorial went on to say: "The association isn't asking anything so horrendous and hostile to doctrinaire socialist thinking as a free market." Heaven forbid! It wants immediate consumer representation on marketing boards and hearings before increases. It doesn't think there should be so much power vested in board members who have a financial interest at stake. I think that spells out the problem, and I don't think this bill spells out the answer.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Wallace: I must say, as I mentioned briefly in comments yesterday, that I thought the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), showed a rare measure of courage in political public life when she came out swinging, one might say, against the egg marketing board. I was so impressed by the news release from her department dated October 7 that I took great care to keep the release, because I thought it would be very useful in this debate. And I think it's proving to be very useful.

The most important comment that I think the Minister made is: "It is obvious that the B.C. Egg Marketing Board as presently constituted and operated has lost its credibility in the eyes of the general public."

The Minister goes on to say that she recalls a former egg producer being interviewed on television when the price of Grade A large went up to 98 cents. She says: "We consumers have been subjected to several price hikes in the preceding months, but this

[ Page 4432 ]

was the last straw." She said in that interview that the first two price increases were justified due to the increased feed and labour costs. That's the costs that the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) interjected about a minute ago. But the Minister goes on to say, "The final increase to 98 cents was totally unjustified. There was no reason for it except that the egg marketing board decided to take everything that the traffic would bear."

Oh, dear, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of socialist accusation we get about free enterprise all the time — that what's wrong with free enterprise is that the enterprises charge what the market will bear. But what's overlooked is that in the free enterprise system there's competition, and you can't charge what the market will bear when you have honest competition. I think that in our debate….

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): Honest competition.

Mr. Wallace: Honest competition. That's right, Mr. Member for Kamloops. Honest competition. That's all we on this side of the House ever ask for. But we do want competition. We do want competition.

Now who should be the board or vehicle to decide what is honest and dishonest competition? That is a separate issue. Under the present marketing system there is no competition. We free enterprisers, in selling and dealing with other commodities, believe that the marketplace is the place where the competition should take place and where the price should be decided by competition.

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: Oh, yes, I do, Mr. Mines Minister (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). I do believe that; don't have any fear about that.

I started, however, by saying that in the area of food and health care we have to take a different approach because of the fact that the people who provide the food and grow the food are entitled to a fair return.

The evidence is there that consumers are sick and tired of reading this kind of publicity in the newspaper, particularly when it comes from a Minister of the cabinet who knows a great deal about the precise actions and pricing arrangements on the Egg Marketing Board. The public are asking questions and they want action and they want some kind of legislation which will give them more protection than presently exists.

I think it was very disappointing indeed that after this courageous outburst by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) and the evidence that she's not prepared to sit idly by and go along with whatever seems to be politically desirable, yesterday she turned around 180 degrees and just buckled under to the promise of the contents of this bill, which I don't think promise the kind of action which the Minister was seeking.

Even the Minister of Agriculture himself back in July publicly said he would welcome a price review system. I'm not certain whether he felt that it should start as far back as the marketing boards or whether it should be concentrated on the supermarkets, but I think the evidence is very clear that it should be both.

One of the reasons I so strongly oppose this bill is that it really isn't going to solve anything. It's going to give a false sense of assurance to the public that one more super-duper bureaucratic board will do to the marketing boards what they are not responsibly doing themselves. That is to safeguard both the interests of the producer and the consumer.

It's my feeling that while the consumer is entitled to fair play, he's not entitled to feather-bedding. That was a word we used to use in the old country when the farmers in Britain got up on their hind legs and danced and screamed and said they were not getting a fair deal. The government of that day, which was also a socialist government, went overboard. Before you knew it, every farmer and his brother were being feather-bedded to death and guaranteed costs of this, that and the other. I see the same kind of trend developing here in British Columbia.

There's certainly a demonstrated need to look at the marketing board system, but the way in which it should be handled is not by this kind of legislation in Bill 165. The need is for a detailed review of marketing on a wide front, involving all the products that are presently marketed by the 10 boards, and then legislation after a detailed study of what the problems are.

I hope for a greater degree of cooperation and rapport between provincial and federal levels. As I said earlier on, I think the biggest and most distressing factor in this debate is, if there was proper provincial-federal cooperation through such organizations as CEMA, surely, with the good will which I know we all have in this House, there should be some way of making sure that food finally finds its way to those who need it rather than having it destroyed at a time when there is starvation in many comers of the globe.

So the bill just doesn't begin to solve the problem.

The Minister said there was need for community support of this legislation. I think more appropriate words would be a need for community trust. I think the community will support measures which clearly demonstrate that there will be fairer mechanisms and fair treatment for both the producer and the consumer. Justice will not only be done but will be seen to be done.

Again, with this further layer of bureaucracy and

[ Page 4433 ]

with all the growth of government in all provinces and all levels of government, I think people are generally simply becoming cynical at the kind of gobbledygook that government turn out in a rather plastic attempt to prove that that government is protecting the citizen or the consumer.

Never mind protecting the consumer regarding the price of a product; look at some of the measures in this bill in regard to invasion of the freedom of an individual. There are powers in this bill which are just unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. We'll get into them when we get clause by clause debate.

This provincial board has power to "designate any person" — that's one of the phrases. In parts of the bill, in particular, we have the power to stop and search a vehicle without a search warrant and seize and confiscate the product. Then, if later on a hearing shows that they made a mistake, whatever is left of the product can be returned to the producer. Big deal! Big-hearted Arthur we are! Right indeed that we should take this kind of power, invade somebody's privacy, seize their product and then, after you do a proper investigation, find out that maybe they weren't breaking the law after all. They can have their rotten eggs back or their rotted cabbages or whatever it is.

The kind of phraseology in this bill! Apart from the fact that I'm against the bill anyway for the reasons I've mentioned, to take a look at this bill and see some of the phraseology is just Orwellian.

"….if, during an inspection or examination, it appears that this Act or the regulations (are being violated)….

"….seize and take away, for the purpose of evidence ….

"…stop and detain any vehicle, any person on its behalf so designated…."

Who is this any person? Is the nearest Joe Blotch who happens to be around when they want to take action against a vehicle? Is it the local NDP organizer? Or is it the human resources committee? Who is it? "Any person."

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): The organizer.

Mr. Wallace: I know that the community resource boards have been given a wide spectrum of authority. Within the terminology of this bill, they could certainly be designated to be the ones to stop, search and seize vehicles.

The Attorney-General always smiles when we get onto this. I'm just waiting for the standard answer: "Oh, but this kind of legislation is just a little bit of authority, just a little power." He always comes back with the answer: "Well, of course, this power exists in a lot of other legislation."

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: Oh, I'm glad you rose to the bait, Mr. Attorney-General. I don't care how long it has been in legislation, or in this bill or any other bill; it is not the kind of legislation that's appropriate for 1974. It's more appropriate for 1984.

Mr. L.A. Williams: This power to search and seize is not in the….

Mr. Wallace: Well, my colleague on my right from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) disputes that this power is in the present bill. But this bill provides the kind of power for the cabinet to designate "any person." It's those two words. "Any person" means that the cabinet is given a tremendous amount of authority to designate individuals who may take the kind of power into their own hands without a search warrant, which I thought was just unbelievable.

It was always my impression that we have basic freedoms enshrined by tradition and otherwise in Canada. There are certain basic protections which the individual has before he or his possessions or his vehicle or any other possession can be searched.

Another phrase: where the person designated "…has reasonable grounds to believe that…."

Mr. Speaker, when individuals get harassed by a marketing board or a sheriff or anyone, it was always my impression that before this kind of action was permissible, there had to be evidence. I always thought that prosecution and action and interference with certain rights and freedoms was based on evidence. The phraseology in this bill makes the evidence of the most slender, transparent kind.

Where the member, so designated, "…has reasonable grounds to believe that a provision or (an order)…is not being complied with…or any person on its behalf designated…." may do these various things.

There are other areas, too, which I think we can leave over for the moment.

Another aspect, for example, is that a person can be interfered with or stopped and detained. If the product was grown in a different area than the area in which the marketing rules apply, the burden of proof is on the possessor of the product.

There again, it seems to me that we're reversing some pretty basic ideas. I always thought that in this society you were guilty until proved innocent — or innocent until proven guilty. (Laughter.) This is what the bill says: you're guilty until proven innocent. "The burden of proof shall be upon the accused person." We've even got the word "accused" right here in the legislation, Mr. Speaker, before the person has had any kind of charge laid or anything, other than a rather unwarranted measure of investigation

[ Page 4434 ]

by some designated person.

This seems to me again a complete contradiction of what is basic in our system of justice, and that is that this bill, under this particular section…. It's appropriately entitled "Penalties Section." It sure is a penalty. It's just a penalty for an individual to have this amount of interference by an individual or individuals, designated by some faceless board of bureaucrats.

This makes it very clear that if an individual is found with a product in his vehicle, he's guilty until proven innocent. He has to have the burden of proof that the product was grown at some distance outside the area where he's been stopped. I just don't like the use of those words "accused person," because the person at that point in the system surely shouldn't be regarded as being accused of a crime.

I notice that the bill has considerable mention also, Mr. Speaker, of constitutional concern. It's very obvious that the bill's been written with some considerable apprehension by the Minister, that a lot of it is ultra vires. Anticipating that very fact, there are all kinds of long, wordy clauses which I'm not sure I fully understand; but I'm sure the lawyers in our midst understand them.

Certain parts of this bill the Minister already knows are ultra vires, and he's sort of trying to scotch the problem — if you'll pardon the word "scotch." He's trying to deal with the problem before it arises. If this is the case, he knows very well that certain sections will be declared ultra vires. The bill goes on to state that any other parts that are not ultra vires will carry the full weight of law.

Well, I just as a layman seem to think that must be a pretty inefficient way to write legislation when you put in parts which you're pretty sure will fall down on a constitutional basis, but you'll put them in anyway, and you'll protect the rest of the bill by saying that the parts that are not questioned on a constitutional basis will be upheld.

I really feel that there are so many areas…. As I pointed out initially, the bill itself — the concept — does not answer the basic problem. Even if you analyse the bill in regard to the method that has been adopted, it is fraught with dangerous powers which should not be delegated by cabinet, in my view. It is poorly draughted. It admits that it is probably unconstitutional in parts.

The overall feeling of sheer desperation I get when I read this bill is that we're just going to have another great big layer of bureaucratic government participation and yet one more group of boards, commissions, agencies, and goodness knows how many tax regulations and associated super-snoopers who can go around arresting people, seizing their produce, searching their vehicle, and having complete protection within the law if they make a mistake. That's the final indignity and the affront which this bill carries out to the rights and freedoms of the individual.

This paragraph is also appropriately entitled "Protection of members of boards from actions." Not only do we have all this bureaucracy and power and delegated authority, but when some of these super-snoopers exceed their authority and make mistakes, this bill gives them complete protection from any action by the individual who has been so affronted and wrongly accused.

No, Mr. Speaker, this bill outstrips some of the bills we've already discussed in this House; and there have been some dandies — we all know that — where this government is power hungry and seems to know no bounds in delegation of authority to control the individual in society and at the same time protect the person who carries out the accusing.

I just feel that having criticized this bill I should finish by making some positive proposals. One of the elements in the functioning of the marketing boards which has caused concern is that no one really knows the degree to which the formula for the cost of production is derived. This, in itself, seems to be a source of disagreement even amongst the boards themselves. So there has to be some vehicle or some mechanism whereby the cost of production formula should be reviewed.

Secondly, there's no question whatever that consumers must be involved in the decisions regarding marketing. As I mentioned a moment ago, it's my impression from the Minister's public comments that he believes in this. Mr. Speaker, the word "consumer" isn't mentioned once in the whole bill. We're told that 10 persons will be appointed, but the particular nature of these 10 people, whether they'll be nine consumers and one producer, or one consumer and nine something else, is left completely undefined.

It seems to me, taking these two factors into account, that there is real need for a detailed investigation of the whole marketing system. I agree with the Minister that it should include supermarkets and the retailing agencies as well as the producers.

The consumer these days has growing concern and suspicion that a great deal of manipulation of price goes on. Supermarkets advertise specials where the price last week was probably less than the special price this week. Now I don't know to what degree that happens, but some cases have been demonstrated.

I think that the very growth of consumer service legislation in North America is actual and obvious proof of the need for greater consumer involvement and supervision of the marketplace generally. I don't think there could ever be a better time for this government to take a real initiative and set up some detailed investigation of marketing of natural products, particularly since the Minister himself back in July agreed that there was real need for a price

[ Page 4435 ]

inquiry.

For these various reasons, Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this bill, and I would hope that the government might consider some of these positive proposals which I've added.

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister Of Mines And Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have listened for the last two days to the debate in regard to this bill dealing with marketing boards. I have been one that has been critical of marketing boards from time to time.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): That's before you got $40,000 a year.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: I listened to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) yesterday, and he was trying to take us back to the origin of marketing boards. I remember full well why the first marketing board was formed. It was when the people in the Okanagan sat on the railroad tracks and stopped the trains and said: "Five cents a pound, or they rot on the ground."

Mrs. Jordan: My grandfather was there.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: I'm sure he was, and I could be your grandfather pretty near, I suppose…

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick:…because I was there too.

Now at that time the farmer couldn't get five cents a pound for his apples.

Mrs. Jordan: He couldn't get one cent a pound.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: The consumer benefited from it if he had the money to buy. But you people over there have talked for two days and you haven't given one alternative policy to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, who is trying to bring about changes to correct some of the things that have happened over the years.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Do you ever accept any of our ideas?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Capitalism depends upon the marketplace. This is the only way the producer of agricultural products has to protect himself, and that's why the marketing board was started — because capitalism at that time had fallen down, failed to operate.

The demand is based on supply and demand — not on the need, but on the demand of those who have enough money to purchase the goods.

The consumer has never been taken into consideration. The consumer is the victim at every turn of the road. He's the victim of high prices, of people trying to be greedy and to make as much as they possibly can.

You know, we haven't learned anything from the Thirties. We're still playing around with the same set of blocks that we did at that time, to try and solve a problem that is inherent in a system that we're operating under.

This is no panacea. This bill here is not going to be the panacea either. I don't expect it will be, because I don't think it's within the province's powers to solve all these problems. You could have a better chance on the federal field.

Back in the '30s, in order to keep up a false price structure, they dumped 3.5 million pigs into the Mississippi; they turned down every second row of cotton; they burned huge piles of oranges. Not because the people had enough and didn't need them; the people were going without and starving. And there are people in the world today who are starving, while only a few years ago we paid people not to plant wheat.

A few years before that we subsidized the price of butter — when we paid 59 cents a pound to the farmer for butter — and we got such a huge supply of butter on hand that we didn't know what to do with it. Under our system we couldn't ship that butter at 25 cents a pound to India or to Africa or to South America. The only place we could send it, without upsetting their economy, was to a country that had a managed economy — that was Poland. That was the only place we could ship it for 25 cents a pound. We didn't give the consumer in Canada a chance to buy that butter at 25 cents a pound, and many people couldn't buy butter at the price that it was.

The same thing is happening today. In Quebec they killed the calves because the farmer is not getting sufficient to look after himself, and the only way that he can do that is try to bring it to the attention of somebody. Very likely they will end up with some sort of a marketing board there to try and up the prices. If you up the farm prices, which is legitimate to the farmer, you're going to up the price to the consumer.

So when I hear people ask where's the protection to the consumer — the consumer has no protection; he hasn't had protection, and he's not going to have protection….

Some Hon. Members: Under this bill, under this bill.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: The consumer isn't going to be the one that's going to be the most benefited.

When they set up the marketing boards originally,

[ Page 4436 ]

many of those marketing boards became little empires. They did things that weren't in agreement with the people whom they were serving. You got that with that vote you had with the tree fruits board. This bill here is sort of an ombudsman over all the different marketing boards, so they can appeal. Sort of an ombudsman over all of them. It's a sincere attempt to try and bring back and correct some of the things that have been done wrong in the individual marketing boards over the years. This is the only way that we can see.

I haven't heard one alternative policy put forward by the loyal opposition or by the Liberal Party or by the large Conservative Party that we've got in the House.

Mr. Wallace: You weren't listening; I finished up with a proposal.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: When we think of trying to stop the growth of foodstuff in a world that is crying with hunger, I think it's a sacrilege. We've got to find someway…and I don't think B.C. could do it alone, it's got to be done country-wide and globular in order that the people of the world will be able to enjoy some of these products that are grown. Rather than stop the growth, we should be increasing the growth of vegetables and fruits and different things so that these people could live a little better. Let me tell you that many people throughout the world, and many people in Canada…they had to cut down even their use of eggs because they couldn't afford to purchase them always — when the price goes up.

This is what they did back in the '30s. Don't forget that we're playing with the same set of blocks that we did in the '30s, and we're not getting any further — except that we're trying to put a plastic band on the system that you people are supporting all the time.

The people of the country…if they were ready to accept a system that would solve these problems, then we could solve them. But I don't think that time has arrived. Although, back in the '30s I looked ahead and I thought that it wouldn't be long before they would accept these changes. But these changes are going to come and whether we like it or not — whether you like it or not — we're going to change the economic system where it will have human interest put before the making of profits.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines has just given us an eloquent account of many of the problems of agriculture, but then he ends up calling this legislation a plastic band, which I'm afraid it is. He said that we're still playing around with the blocks of the '30s, and this is still playing around with the blocks of the '30s. That's what this bill is doing, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad it's getting a careful examination because it's a very important piece of legislation. It's important to our freedoms, and the powers that it would cause this Legislature to delegate and to re-delegate to the cabinet. It's important to every consumer in this province. Something between 40 and 60 per cent of all the produce of agriculture that we consume goes through a marketing board of one kind or another. Their regulation is of enormous importance.

What the Minister has done here is to take an idea, which is an idea of a supervisory board, and then propose a system of implementation which is not good. The idea of a supervisory board I personally believe to be a good one.

Much comment has been given to the Forbes report, and I'm going to talk about that report a little bit later on. Let me read the first of Professor Forbes' general recommendations. He said:

"Steps should be taken immediately to direct and supervise marketing boards at the provincial level to reduce the undesirable side effects of board actions in arbitrary pricing, undue supply restrictions, individual quota transfer ability, undue restriction of entry and geographic restriction of production, and to include adequate and effective access to board decisions and representation of consumer and other interests."

That's the idea, Mr. Speaker. That's the idea that maybe the government started with in drawing up this legislation, but that's not the implementation. That's not the bill we have in front of us. Where are the measures to eliminate the undesirable side effects, of board actions and arbitrary pricing or undue supply restrictions and all the other things Professor Forbes mentioned that should be dispensed with? It's not in this legislation.

The implementation is bad. The government has a way of taking an idea, playing around with it and making it into bad policy, and they've done that here.

The first problem I see with the form of implementation is the sweeping powers. I think the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) dealt very well with many of those powers in the bill. But just to indicate the overwhelming blanket effect, it notes here in section 7(1): "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations" — stroke of a pen — "and may vest in the Provincial board or any marketing board or commission such authorities and powers as are considered necessary or advisable with reference to the marketing…." Absolutely no boundary or restriction on it, Mr. Speaker, just a complete blank cheque.

Now as the Minister and, I'm sure, the Attorney-General well knows, that wording is in the present legislation.

[ Page 4437 ]

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: The present legislation is more severe.

Mr. Gibson: It's very similar. In fact, these things have been carried forward in ways that should not have been done. If this government meant what it said about being a sunshine government…. The Attorney-General is having some things to say and I hope he'll stand in his place and say them about this Act.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister Of Health): Why don't you read the legislation?

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gibson: It's government by regulation, Mr. Speaker, and that part is a very bad thing.

Secondly there are no guidelines set forward, either in this legislation or in the statement of the Minister in introducing the legislation, as to how his new superboard should operate. He hasn't indicated to us who will be on the board. Will it simply be a group of friends of the government? To what extent, to what percentage will it represent producers? To what percentage consumers? How will the overall representation, which must be parallel to representation of the public interest which the government and the Legislature is suppose to look after, how will this public interest be represented and be made preeminent on this board?

Why has not the Minister said something in his policy statement with respect to the use of pricing mechanisms by marketing boards as income redistribution schemes for the agricultural sector? Why has he not said something about trading and profiteering in, quotas? Why is there not something in the legislation about this? Why has he not said something or put something in the guidelines for the provincial marketing board which would state whether or not land and quota capitalization costs should be built into the costing factor, which puts us, as the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) outlined, on an ever-rising treadmill when one builds costs into administered prices?

Why is there nothing in this legislation about information disclosure — the right of public access to information developed not just by the superboard but by the marketing boards themselves? There's not even in the description of the appeal process a provision that all of the documents provided to the superboard concerning the appeal be made public. There's no provision for public attendance or consumer representatives at meetings of marketing boards.

The next problem with the implementation is that the Act is far too broad. The definition of natural product is one that casts a very wide net. There's no opportunity for producers to have a vote as, to whether or not they wish to be constituted into a marketing board.

When I note that the definition of natural product includes forests, I say to myself — and, Mr. Minister, I'd like you to stand in your place and deny this — "Is this a backdoor into the takeover of the forest industry? Is this a simple way of putting a marketing board over every lumber mill in this province and every pulp mill, saying, 'Those are your prices and this is how much you're going to be allowed to produce this month and there's who you're going to buy from and there's who you're going to sell to'?” Those powers are all in the board, Mr. Minister; the powers are all there in that Act.

The Minister indicates that that's an improper interpretation. I'd like that Minister to stand in his place right now and say on behalf of the government, "There's no intention whatsoever in any way of using this Act in the forest industry."

And if that's correct, will the government accept an amendment to delete the word "forest" from this Act?

I see the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is back in the House, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would care to reply to that. It's a question of utmost importance. It's a backdoor into the forest industry, or could be used in that way.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: I wish she was here to answer. The Minister hasn't, in his statement introducing the bill, grappled with many of the basic issues of agriculture.

He did give a complete defence of the boards, and I'd ask him why he shouldn't admit that there may have been a few things wrong with the way in which boards have operated in the past. There are examples to come, but I point out at this point that even his colleague, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) has been very vocal on this point — to her credit.

The Minister made price comparisons of market-board products to other selected food products and claimed that market board increases had been mild by comparison. What he should have done, of course, was not take a few highly-selected items like sugar but rather have used for his comparison the general consumer price index in food over the period he wanted to compare and compared that with his marketing-board products. Then he should have given us the answer. That defence was thrown out the window by the Minister's lack of completeness there.

In his introductory statement he did not give us reasons for failing to proceed with the legislative committee that he himself suggested setting up in a motion on the order paper. I submit that one of the

[ Page 4438 ]

reasons for not proceeding with that committee was that it might have gotten into areas very uncomfortable to the government. It might have dealt with the calling of witnesses who would have been embarrassing to the government. I wish the Minister would deal with that point when he closes second reading.

There has been a great deal of comment during this debate about a report prepared by Professor James Forbes of the University of British Columbia. I note that the Minister of Consumer Affairs yesterday told us,

As far as Professor Forbes goes, I think Professor Forbes has done a real service to British Columbia and to Canada for bringing forward some very detailed and thoughtful analysis of various boards.

I think that's a correct statement, Mr. Speaker. Professor Forbes has produced an analysis which is not biased. It's definitely not anti-marketing board. Indeed, it's for marketing boards in the sense that it suggests many means to improve their performance.

The report, I think, is of sufficient importance that I'm going to read a few selected segments of it. Obviously, this is very selected and doesn't do justice to the report because it's a report of some 69 pages plus appendices. But in dealing with the consumer interests he notes that the interests of marketing boards are not coincident with those of consumers.

"One of the expressed objectives of any agricultural marketing board is to protect the interest of the producers. The interests of consumers and other groups of society are not irrelevant; they're merely secondary."

Then he notes later on that that really shouldn't be the case because consumption is the purpose of production, and the consumer interest should be paramount in the regulation of economic activity.

I would think that would naturally be a statement to which the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) would subscribe to. I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) would subscribe to it as well. Again, in closing this debate, he might tell us what he thinks about some of the directions brought forward in this report.

Professor Forbes describes the enormous powers granted to marketing boards by legislation and which would be increased by this legislation.

"Marketing board legislation grants powers to boards which is unparalleled in our society. Many of the powers granted to boards, such as price-fixing, limiting production, restricting entry — to name a few — are prohibited in our anti-combine legislation in all other areas of economic activity."

And they are included in this bill, as the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) says.

That is why, when we set up instrumentalities with this kind of power, the public interest must prevail in the machinery that's built in to regulate it. And that means that the controlling agencies of those boards have to have on them people who are dedicated to the public interest and not to a special interest — or at least the public interest component must overbear all of the others. And that's why I ask the Minister, before he finishes, to give us some assurances about the composition of this superboard.

Professor Forbes draws to our attention some of the other dangerous consequences of the monopoly status of these boards, dangers essentially related to their economic efficiency. He says on page 25:

"Marketing boards, to the extent that they have monopoly powers, are removed from some of the competitive consequences of changes in the marketplace. The more complete their market power, the less there is competitive pressure to respond to these changes." And he notes later on:

"Unfortunately, where monopoly power exists, it provides a protective umbrella which permits inefficiencies to be ignored or to become entrenched as traditional practices. The possession of substantial market power will at worst stifle innovation and at best not provide an economic incentive for the development of imaginative new ideas."

He might have noted as well that in a monopoly situation of this kind, the costs and the prices will generally reflect those of the least efficient producer rather than the most efficient producer, with a consequent tax on the consuming public.

I think most Members of this House would agree that boards have very legitimate uses. Properly controlled, they are a factor that should be continued in our agricultural sector.

Some of their objects are to match supply and demand, especially with perishable commodities, and to maintain income by production or price controls. Perhaps in some cases they make a net transfer of income from other Canadians to the agricultural sector. They have the valid purpose of attempting to minimize swings in income and to spread risks among different categories of producers.

They have a number of promotional aims, all of which are good: good distribution, research and product improvement, the development of export markets, innovation in technology, growth in harvesting, consumer education, grading and quality control. Many things of this kind are useful functions of marketing boards.

At the same time they act for the producers as defenders against sometimes improper international competition when there are cases of dumping on the Canadian market. They act as defences to some extent against the swings and vagaries of climate and Mother Nature; they act as defenders against the

[ Page 4439 ]

market power of large and economically powerful buyers. They perform all of these functions.

The problems arise when they start to do things that they were not designed for, because their control structure is not properly thought out. About that aspect of it, let's ask how the system has actually worked. That's what a major portion of the Forbes study is all about. I commend it to every Member of this House.

First of all, Professor Forbes enters a caveat. He notes: "The reader should realize that the majority of boards do not manipulate either price or quantity, even though they have the power to do so." So we're talking about a minority of the boards, in other words.

He goes on to note what happens when production is cut back:

"If production is arbitrarily restricted by a board, the price rises and inefficient producers are encouraged to remain in the market. The efficient producers receive a higher price than is justified and this results in a capitalization of their right to produce."

Mr. Speaker, that capitalization of a right to produce is exactly what the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) was discussing when he mentioned the pernicious quota systems as they are practiced in some of the marketing schemes.

To quote Professor Forbes:

"Quotas are the means by which producers are allocated the right to produce a product under marketing board control. The individual peculiarities of quota for any product vary widely but if a quota is used, entry is restricted and there is an economic return to producing the particular product, the right to produce acquires an economic value. Some boards have allowed producers to sell quota rights and therefore capitalize the right to produce. If the capitalized value of quotas is reflected in costs, and costs are used to determine price, these quotas will be contrary to the consumer interest. "

That's a flat statement, Mr. Speaker: the quotas in those cases "will be contrary to the consumer interest."

There are some specific examples of how these quotas have been contrary to the consumer interest. Let me start first of all with the milk and dairy product industry. To again quote Professor Forbes:

"In the milk sheds for the major urban areas of Canada, prices have been higher than they need to be and are to the advantage of the large dairy producer who has been in business for a long period of time. Entry to the industry is severely restricted, inhibiting potential changes in production, manufacturing and distribution. Consumers have been taxed for many years by a complete embargo on almost all cheeses and all butter from lower-cost foreign sources. The cost of dairy support programmes, which include federal support as well as the consumer tax in the form of higher prices for dairy products, have amounted to $300 million to $400 million per year in recent years."

That's pretty bad, Mr. Speaker, but it's not the worst, because we in British Columbia have a distinction in that field. I quote the British Columbia facts: "For a British Columbia family which consumes three quarts of milk a day, this added cost amounted to $21.68 in 1973." For a similar family in Saskatchewan this was less than 50 cents for the year.

Three quarts of milk a day is a little over 1,000 quarts a year, so we're talking about a premium of around 2 cents a quart as a direct result of the quota system as it is administered in the milk industry in British Columbia.

Eggs — or course, we know about. We have the word of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) speaking in the interests of the consumer: "In my view, these interests are not being served by the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, rather those interests are being exploited beyond endurance by that board." I don't think we need any more on the egg subject.

On the poultry subject, Professor Forbes says:

"The consumer interest is not being served as well as it could be by the poultry industry in Canada. In the most recent past, the consumer has been overcharged for some poultry products."

He notes further that high prices to the Canadian poultry industry have generally been capitalized into poultry quotas under marketing board control.

Professor Forbes has kind words for the Hog Marketing Boards, and he has some good words for the B.C. fruit marketing board, noting that some of the marketing boards work very hard to develop export markets for their products, and he cites the fruit marketing board in that regard.

We have the word of someone else for it. There's a recent report by Wendy Holm Dixon in a graduate thesis for the University of British Columbia, which made a comparison of the British Columbia Broiler Board to the counterpart in Washington state. Now, in making this comparison you have to take into account certain subsidies in the feed costs in the United States, but overall, Ms. Dixon found that because of present B.C. legislation, B.C. chicken producers have returns more than double those of Washington state producers; competition is eliminated; production costs are higher; efficiency is lower; and retail outlets in B.C. can charge a markup of about 30 cents a pound, compared to 5 to 8 cents a pound in Washington state.

Interestingly enough, the chairman of the relevant

[ Page 4440 ]

marketing board, Mr. Liedtke, disagreed, naturally, with much of that report but made this quote in the September 12 edition of The Province: "I suppose that a royal commission into food prices from market to consumer is the answer." That's an interesting thought which I think we ought to come back to later, Mr. Speaker.

Professor Forbes makes the very basic and important point that marketing boards ought not to be thought of and used as income-redistribution schemes. The basic reason he says this cannot work is because most of the advantages of the higher income produced by higher prices goes to the larger farmers.

"The assumption that higher prices will result in higher agricultural incomes is a fallacy. In a very short time higher prices for agricultural products have resulted in higher cost operations for new entrants since these higher prices have been capitalized into either higher land values or into higher quota values, all of these quotas under marketing board control."

He notes later that 19 per cent of Canadian farmers received 59 per cent of agricultural sales.

"If our income policy for agriculture is to raise income for all farmers, it has patently failed since the major effect of price go to less than 20 per cent of the farmers."

And later on:

"The point we want to make, and make very emphatically, is that an income policy for agriculture should be based on net income to the producer, not on high prices based on inflated prices to agricultural land caused by artificially high prices for agricultural products.

"In order to raise farm wages to a comparable level with those in other sectors of our economy there must be fewer numbers of farmers whose contribution to agricultural production distributed among them and their hired labour will raise returns to labour.

"Assisting movement out of the agricultural sector and easing the adjustments necessary for farmers to make this move should be a major thrust of our agricultural policy."

These are very basic and important themes, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Minister might allude to them when he closes the debate on second reading. What has been said here is that the attempt of marketing boards to keep prices high enough to provide a decent living to the least efficient producer, when the producing units are small, can have the effect of giving very high returns to relatively few farmers, and at the same time raising prices considerably for consumers.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Here's a statement I think worthy of reading because I can't conceive how the government, and particularly a socialist government, could do other than agree with this statement of philosophy. It's on page 58 of the report:

"Some sort of supply restriction will continue to be necessary in some agricultural commodities. However, all great haste must be made to ensure that individuals are not allowed to capitalize society's gift to them of the right to produce to their own personal benefit."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, that's a windfall profit of a monopoly conferred on a particular individual by society as a whole.

Here are some of Professor Forbes' conclusions put very briefly: "The use of prices to achieve the objective of higher incomes to producers in the agricultural sector is not working." That's a flat statement of fact, Mr. Speaker, and I think the Minister should either refute it or deal with it.

He states this: "The costs of agricultural programmes are probably well over $1 billion yearly, one half from consumer price increases through higher prices and the other half from direct governmental transfer in agricultural programmes." What are the numbers in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker? I'd like to know them.

The next recommendation relates to foreign trade. Next: "Marketing boards have the potential to be an effective instrument of agricultural policy, but need competent direction and control by government."

Next: "Speculation in land is a significant source of costs in agricultural production and, as a result, in the prices consumers pay for food." Not only land, incidentally, but quotas, I would add to that statement.

Mr. Speaker, given the very broad scope of an examination of this kind, it seems to me that at the very least, even if this bill seemed to be good legislation rather than having the terribly sweeping powers it has in it, it would still be a good thing to refer it to some kind of a committee. I think there might be a very good case made for the appointment of a royal commission into the agricultural sector generally, and market boards in particular, to hear evidence, to consider this scheme among others and to bring back recommendations to the government. But certainly….

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) as you well know, the Forbes commission was not a provincial commission. It was not exclusively directed to British Columbia agriculture. Furthermore, no attention was paid to it by the government. That's why we need a royal commission.

[ Page 4441 ]

Mr. Speaker, the bill as it stands is unacceptable.

Mr. F Richter (Boundary-Similkameen): I was interested in some of the statements by the various Members of the government, and particularly by the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), who was relating back to the 1930s. He was there when the farmers were more or less picketing the railway because they were not getting the returns on their fruit that they felt they had to have. The Minister of Mines quoted the price of five cents a pound or on the ground. Now this is very incorrect.

Actually the amount the farmers were asking was not "five cents a pound or on the ground;" it was one cent. That is equal to $20 a ton, and not the $100 a ton that the Minister would have led us to believe. On the basis of the Minister's statement this would have been $2.50 per box. Actually, all the farmers were asking was 40 cents a box.

Now how far can the Minister distort these sorts of things? I was kind of surprised at the Minister of Mines' statement. I must say that he's not any more enlightened on the agricultural marketing boards of the province than he is on his own mining legislation.

Interjection.

Mr. Richter: The popcorn issue, you know, that's something he tried to bypass. However, he hasn't been very adept at even dealing with popcorn, because I don't think he knows whether we produce any popcorn in British Columbia or not.

In discussing the principle of the bill that we have before us, Bill 165, I think it's necessary to relate the necessity of ever introducing a Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act — known as chapter 263 of the revised statutes of 1960. Now this legislation, which came in in the '30s under Dr. Macdonald, who was then the Minister of Agriculture, was not taken lightly at the time. It was a matter that had been discussed at every level of production. And the government in its wisdom saw fit, after being asked by the various production entities, to bring the broad principle of natural products marketing legislation in to British Columbia.

There was a need, as the history will indicate, for such legislation. That need was for producers to protect themselves. We had overproduction; we had undercutting in the selling. There was a breaking down of price structures. It became a dog-eat-dog situation where producers who were attempting to be producers found themselves that they had to sell at reduced prices. Consequently, they broke the whole marketing of our products down.

In the legislation, the present statute, there is provision for a British Columbia marketing board of three members. Now these three members had the obligation of more or less watching over the various schemes. Under the legislation a scheme could be brought in on any number of commodities. We relate to some, such as the Tree Fruits Marketing Board, the Vegetable Marketing Boards; there were other types of boards too.

I heard a bit of a guffaw today when the Member for Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned the wood industry. We did at one time have a cedar shingle marketing board in this province — long since gone out of existence. But we did have that. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility of applying the marketing legislation to various types of commodities that come within the category of natural products in the province.

Now the three-member board, without the necessity of bringing in Bill 165, has very extensive powers in which they can correct any measures in which a marketing scheme board may intent to indulge. These matters can be corrected by that board. So it gives me some wonderment as to why we should have to bring in a superboard — or let us call it a board — that is going to wedge itself and do those things which should be the responsibility of the Minister and his marketing board of three members. That consists of two members of his staff, plus one member that came from what was then Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce — an economist. By this fact alone it gives me great concern as to why we're going into this superboard structure. I feel that this is completely unnecessary, unwarranted, and it will do many things, as I relate at a further time in my address.

In the federal Act, or Acts, it relates to agricultural products. This Act, Bill 165, is not confined to agriculture. It has a very broad effect and coverage on various commodities, and it could go into almost any type of operation and do all those things that the various schemes or the commodity boards now do.

So all you're doing is really replacing the authority and prerogative of a commodity board. Under a scheme, and under the terms of the Act, you're bringing about a situation which will be a slow process of eliminating producer boards. Actually, Mr. Speaker, the medicine is worse than the ailment.

Because of the severe powers that will be used…. there's no question in my mind that they will be used, because of the historical experiences that have come about through change of time and through changes of technology which various marketing schemes have had to encounter. We have had those times in our history when the going was rough.

Because we deal in world markets and because we have no control over federal measures and authorities as to the imports and exports, our marketing schemes have not been without their problems — and problems beyond their control. But certainly what is proposed in Bill 65 is not going to be a solution to

[ Page 4442 ]

those problems. It's merely passing it on to a board which could or could not be made up of producers. I think that the producers must have a very strong representation on such a board, because we're going to get a feedback from these boards which will have a very great impact on the production of agricultural produce in this province.

We just need to have a few of our marketing schemes wiped out by the edict of this overpowering board and you will find that farmers will be going out of business like you have never seen before.

Now some of the problems of the marketing schemes have been the types of commodities which they have attempted to control. When I say "control" I mean the production, the sales and the preparation of the commodity. We have those types of commodities, the perishables, such as eggs, fruit, milk. When I say they're perishable, they're not only perishable, but you can't turn them off. It's not as if you were handling grain that's easily stored, or with which you can reduce the acreage.

We've got experiences today in that respect in regard to what was done by the federal government as far as grain production is concerned. One of the reasons we're having a high-cost factor in our food products today was the paying for the wiping out of productive acreage which could have been producing. The federal government saw fit to compensate the farmers for not growing grain. Consequently, today we find ourselves in a position that we are short on some of the commodities which the starving world needs. This also relates to the production of various commodities that we could undertake. The cost factor, the matter of the killing of calves by farmers, is a prime example of what can happen when feed costs are at a level which overshadows the production return.

For the edification of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), when the tails get higher than the heads, then you have a situation in which the mine closes down.

Interjection.

Mr. Richter: No — to the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) — it's not the blow flies; it's the heel flies. That's what puts their tails over their heads.

However, the fact that the type of commodity…. For instance, in the matter of the highly perishable commodities and those commodities which you can't turn off, you can turn the hens off if you chops their heads off, but you're going to have to produce some more to take their place. You could kill the milk cows, but that doesn't produce any milk. As far as the trees are concerned, I suppose you could shake the apples down. But in every case you diminish your food production.

Under the broad powers which are being delegated in whole or in part to the boards, this is a matter which is strictly within the control of the Department of Agriculture as to what powers are delegated, as contained in chapter 263 of the 1960 revised statutes. I don't agree that all powers that are within the legislative authority need to be delegated. But because of the wide nature of the various natural products that could come under a marketing scheme, then it was necessary to contain all these powers within the founding legislation on which the schemes were going to be predicated.

Interjection.

Mr. Richter: Yes, this could include Christmas trees. You could have a marketing board for Christmas trees, and that's not stretching the imagination too far. You don't need really to think too far in this way, but we could have marketing boards for Christmas trees — and why? It's because we're harvesting many Christmas trees today that are not naturally grown in a wild state.

Today we are producing a very considerable number of Christmas trees of various species — Dutch pine, blue spruce, Douglas fir — you name it; we've got it. Some are a little easier to produce than others, but the fact still remains that Christmas trees could very easily come under a marketing scheme.

The success or failure of such a scheme would be on the ability of those who are operating this scheme, which I would assume would be producers who would apply to the Minister of Agriculture, after carrying out the necessary plebiscite and gaining the necessary majority of producers' affirmative votes, and then petitioning the Minister to carry out the necessary orders-in-council under the existing Act to formulate a marketing board. What the Minister would be prepared to put into such a scheme by way of powers that he would convey under the relevant legislation to such a board is a point which would be interesting.

In my own experience I know of one board, although there were several boards instituted under my administration — the short period of time that I was in the Minister of Agriculture's portfolio…. one board had attempted on three occasions to gain the necessary support from the producers by which they could apply for a marketing scheme.

In the first two attempts — and these were at intervals approximately two to three years — they failed. The percentage of an affirmative vote that was required was well over 60 per cent. In their third attempt they got a very good majority, more than was required under the authority to hold a plebiscite, and they set up the necessary board.

Quotas were mentioned today. Quotas are only applicable in some cases such as milk. Quotas were necessary so that you didn't get an over-production, which would not have been to the interest of the

[ Page 4443 ]

farmer. They were necessary to maintain his Class 1 quota at an equitable level so that he wouldn't be producing an excessive amount of processing milk, which is paid for at a lower price. He would then be able to control his production in line with his costs, because there is a formula built into the Milk Marketing Act that moves along currently with existing costs, existing wage structures, and so on, to determine a price from month to month. Now this is a relatively simple one.

The quota, as far as being a general commodity…. I have to be quite frank and say that I'm not in favour of it being a saleable commodity. I have always maintained that it should have remained with the board and only issued on the merit of it being earned — not bought and sold.

I have always taken this stand over the course of time. I have always felt this way and I may be individualistic in this approach. However….

An Hon. Member: It's raining rocks in the greater Peace.

Mr. Richter: That's beyond Hope.

However, Mr. Speaker, the function of marketing boards themselves need not be under such a domineering control as they will be when the conditions under Bill 65 are implemented.

I had to say to the Minister that I appreciate his analysis, by way of his news release, that Bill 165 contains sweeping changes in agricultural marketing legislation, as they were introduced the other day in the presentation by the agriculture Minister of the Natural Products of British Columbia Act.

Now this is a very confusing title in that under chapter 263, the Act is called the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, and again in Bill 165 it's called the British Columbia Natural Products Marketing Act, or Natural Products British Columbia Marketing Act. But still in the bill itself … the Natural Products British Columbia Marketing Act, Chapter 263 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia will be repealed.

If we who are used to reading legislation are becoming confused with this sort of doubletalk, what is going to happen to the individual out on the street who doesn't have any concept of interpreting legislation?

The Minister goes on to say that the marketing boards have the potential to be an effective instrument of agricultural policy, but need competent direction and control by government. I think that is the pertinent statement which the Minister has made and has indicated quite clearly that the controls will no longer be in the hands of the producers, but will be in the hands of the government.

The marketing boards have the potential to be an effective instrument of agricultural policy, but need competent — mark that word "competent" — direction and control by government. In other words, the producers have been incompetent.

An Hon. Member: That $150 million overrun, was that competence?

Mr. Richter: Well, I don't know about the $100 million overrun, but that is only one of the many overruns that we'll learn about as time goes on. Mr. Speaker, you know, every once in a while we get some enlightenment. Recently, on a trip I was taking through the province, I learned a great deal of the fact that many of the government Members are not really acquainted with agriculture. Now this might surprise you — many of the Members are not acquainted with the agricultural industry in the way that they should be. I commend those that are attempting to become educated in the field.

Now let me tell you, we had some very interesting discussions in the course of select standing committees. One of our Members who sits on the government side, the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) showed a great deal of interest in the whole field of agriculture. In fact, her interests were so concerned and deep that when some of the cattle industry were telling about the difficulties they were having in marketing some dry beef cows — mark that, dry beef cows, these aren't milk cows — the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard wanted to know why they couldn't keep these cows over the winter until they filled up again. (Laughter.) Let me tell you, she took it very good-humouredly and I razzed her all the way from you know where to where we finished at the Biltmore Hotel in Vancouver. She is going to buy a dry beef cow, and I'm going to watch how she tethers it out over in Vancouver on the lawn until it fills up next spring. (Laughter.)

Mr. Phillips: You don't milk it like the government milks the public.

Mr. Richter: Unfortunately, this dry beef cow doesn't have any milk, but the Hon. Member is going to fill it up again.

It's interesting and I commend any Member of the government benches who wish to become more enlightened about the birds and the bees. The Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is a little concerned about the bees and the bears.

But the matter of the fact is that if they want to make adjudication and vote on legislation such as we will be voting on in Bill 165, the Members must know the facts of life about the agricultural industry. It is a very complex and complicated industry; it is a very trying industry. I commend any of them who have

[ Page 4444 ]

the opportunity to meet with marketing boards, to encourage the government to refer matters of agriculture to their marketing board — do a little travelling. There was a great deal undertaken last year by the chairman of the agricultural select standing committee in travelling the province. But because of the many phases of agriculture, the many aspects of agriculture, the complications of agriculture, he should again be authorized to travel throughout the province, inquire into some matters which were referred to in motion 26 which is still on the order paper, but include beyond that this very legislation, Bill 165.

This is a wonderful time of the year in which you can get all kinds of representation because as the winter approaches, the farmers have a little more time. They're wondering about what they should do next year in regard to the programmes, whether they should really go on in agriculture. Bill 165 may be the deciding factor in their determination of whether they want to continue in agriculture. On the other hand, what can they do? They're tied in; they're frozen into their land. There's no way in which anyone else would want to acquire that land to produce agricultural products because they would be tied into the same basket as the farmer finds himself today.

The Minister expects that this new superboard will be representative of the whole community so that consumers as well as producers will have an opportunity to question and examine the operation role of commodity marketing boards. Now already we have the power to do that.

However, the superboard will have that much more power in which they can summon before them any board. This could be on a provocation of someone complaining from the community. It doesn't necessarily have to be by way of a producer complaining against his board; it can be anyone.

The superboard is going to have the powers to eliminate boards or set up boards or commissions so that we have a multiplicity of commissions, boards and buffer zones between the government and the producers to the effect that a commodity group will have little or no future as far as control of their own commodities are concerned.

How the boards are to be made up is yet to be revealed. I would assume that they will have many of their own political supporters. There are lots of opportunities for various defeated MLAs — or MPs, I mean to say. We hope there are a lot of defeated MLAs at the next election from the government benches. However, I'm not one to speculate.

I'm not in the position at this time to define in my mind just what will happen. We have seen boards and commissions that have been constituted before, and it's a matter in which the government has full control. I think they will exercise it in their own political field and within their political philosophy. This is how the boards will be made up, with little or no regard for the commodity producers.

The Minister has mentioned that consumers have become very conscious of food costs during recent months. I'm in accord with this: consumers have. But producers have equally become concerned about production costs. And there is no scheme presently devised which will guarantee the producer a floor. We have had some income-insurance, cost-of-production schemes come into effect which come up to about 90 per cent of production costs.

It's a serious situation; it's not an easy one to resolve. I have to admit that. But certainly the superboard is not going to be the solution.

Interjections.

Mr. Richter: I appreciate the Minister's concern for defeated MLAs because I assume that you will have quite a few of them in your own ranks to contend with after another election. It's a matter of concern to him.

Interjections.

Mr. Richter: The Minister said:

And in the minds of many, the existence of marketing boards is a major contributing factor in price increases.

I don't think the Minister himself believes it is, but consumers on many occasions attribute it to that.

However, on the other side of the coin, we are living in an inflationary period. Certainly inflation in itself has added to the costs. We also have other factors in the cost of production which include the salaries and the materials that have increased. When you take this into consideration, you can't expect the farmer's production costs to go down so that he can reduce the cost factor to the consumer by any measure which would be comparable to his increase in cost factor. Simple arithmetic will point that out.

About one year ago I predicted that legislation of this nature would be brought into this House. I don't know where I got my idea but it was obvious that the handwriting was pretty much on the wall. And why? Marketing boards at that time were having a certain degree of difficulty. It was a matter of the producers getting their house in order or this government would take their rights from them and put their house in order for them on the basis that they were not competent.

It has been clearly pointed out in this legislation and by way of the Minister's statement that the boards needed this expert direction and control by government. While I had predicted it a year ago, I had hoped I would never see a bill like Bill 165 come before this House.

[ Page 4445 ]

There is no good reason at all why this bill should not be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, or even go further and ask for a royal commission so that input could come forward, but surprisingly enough, in the marketing boards that I am acquainted with, I haven't heard one word to this effect.

I don't know what the Minister may have said. He may have said: "Don't relate what I have said or maybe we'll have to make it stronger." Nothing needs to be stronger than the provisions within Bill 165. The provisions there are of such a nature that they are all-encompassing. It is a short run to the point where the commodity producers in this province will no longer have any say whatsoever over their production, their marketing or their transportation. This will all be done for them by the superboard.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Hon. Member, I am afraid that you time has expired under the rules. I will have to call upon the next speaker.

Mr. Phillips: Where's your light?

Mr. Speaker: I have a light here to guide myself but none for the Members because I have not been able to get an agreement among the Liberals to the idea. There were going to be, but, unfortunately, I can't do it without general consensus.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There's just no warning light. I just wonder if you would explain to the House how many points you get on your driver's licence when that red light goes on on your desk? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: I'm not awarding any points for going through a red light.

I do point out that, unless I have instructions from the various caucuses, there is no way that I could start a light system on the desk and table without that general consent. I hope the Members of the House will get together to do something.

For my part, I want to be absolutely certain that I am fair to every Member. And that means that you get your 40 minutes under the rules. But at that time your time is expired. Without leave of the House you would not be able to continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I would say that so far as democracy is concerned, I think every Member under the rules is entitled to the same time and must be given that time.

Mr. Chabot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I don't see any point of order, but proceed.

Mr. Chabot: I was just wondering if you got authority from the traffic division of the Department of Highways to install those traffic lights up on your desk?

Mr. Speaker: What signals I have between my staff and myself so that I know the time is accurately kept is my business. But if you want….

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chabot: Oh, you're the master of this House now. That's what you're saying. You're master. Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I want to be absolutely certain that the time is kept accurately and is done the way the rules require. To suggest that when I'm told when the time is up is making me the master…. Rather, I'm acting on the rules and I am a servant of the rules.

Would the next Member who wishes to speak please indicate that he does?

MR. LEWIS: It is indeed an honour for me to once again take my place in this poultry debate. I hope that this is the last time this is necessary. I hope that this legislation brings peace within the poultry industry and brings peace within the farming community.

I was a little amused when the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) made the little joke about the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) due to the fact that she isn't aware of everything that happens outside the city. But I also find that I'm a Member of this House that doesn't know what goes on outside the city. Up until a little while ago I didn't know what the Richter Pass was; but after watching Frank in action, I now know. (Laughter.)

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to carry on with the debate. I would like to say, to start with, that I feel that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) we have in the Province of British Columbia at the present time is the best Minister of Agriculture we've ever had in this province. This is not saying that I don't disagree with some of the policies which come from that department. And I think that we'll have to remember that the Minister is the Minister of Agriculture and that I'm a backbencher.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Oh, you've got your processing plant.

Mr. Lewis: I'm a backbencher who is here to

[ Page 4446 ]

express his concerns about what's happening in B.C., express his concerns about what's happening in agriculture — but not necessarily right. I think we have seen a fine example of this during this debate. We've had any number of MLAs stand up in this House, making comments about agriculture, and I don't think any one of them thought they were right.

You know, it is amazing; the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) said that not many Members on the government side knew what happened in agriculture. I find this amazing.

Mr. Smith: On the agricultural committee.

Mr. Lewis: I find this amazing. For 20 years the Social Credit government had an agricultural policy that hardly ever wavered. It said: "Don't do anything. Don't rock the boat. Don't get the consumers excited, and, for goodness' sake, don't let the farmers get out of hand."

Now I'm going to make some comments in regard to marketing boards. I'm going to condemn some marketing boards. But I'm not going to condemn the people who have been on the marketing boards. I think that they have had excessive powers. I think that they have used them very ably. I think that their main interest was to see that the farmer got a proper shake in society. But at the same time, I think it is the same thing that happens to anybody in society when he has excessive powers.

Mr. Phillips: Like your government.

Mr. Lewis: These excessive powers came under your government, my friend. I don't say that your government passed these powers with the intention of them being abused; but I say that they have.

The Broiler Marketing Board is one that very seldom comes in for criticism. It is one of the boards that I think should have by far the most criticism. It has been a parochial board. It's been a board that has been dedicated to preserving the self-power of farmers in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island parts of this province.

I'm not saying that they didn't do the best they could to see that the farmer realized a profit. But I also represent farmers in my part of the province. Farmers in that part of the province also had their farmland frozen as agricultural land. I say that farmers in all parts of this province must have the right to farm.

In my view, the Department of Agriculture has responsibility to every part of this province, and this is one area in which I feel the Department of Agriculture has fallen down.

The marketing board concept is a good one with proper controls.

There has been a lot of criticism about this bill that is before this House at the present time, but I would suggest that the Members check with some of the other provinces in Canada, provinces that had enough foresight to see what could happen and that put in this type of legislation before boards were given powers. There are review boards; there are overseeing boards.

Mr. L.A. Williams: And over-spending boards, too.

Mr. Lewis: The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) said that this is terrible. "Do you know that they are going to put on government-appointed members?" Well, I think that one of the Socred Members that came from his riding was responsible for the establishment of the Milk Marketing Board. It's a board that was appointed by the government totally. Every member on that board was appointed by the provincial government.

I say that this legislation allows for representation from the community, for representation from consumers, farmers, people in the industry — all the people in the community who are affected.

They talk about this Act being too strong. My concern is that the Act may not be enforced severely enough. After reading the Minister's news release I was quite heartened, because I felt that the Department of Agriculture realized that they had to give some direction to farming in this province. Yet after the Minister spoke yesterday and defended marketing boards totally, I had some second thoughts.

I'll tell you that my views haven't changed, and if parts of this legislation aren't effected that are going to see that agriculture has the right to thrive throughout the province, you will be hearing from me again in the Legislature — much as I hate to talk on poultry boards. It's the last thing I want to talk on in this House if I can get away with it.

I think that one of the biggest abuses that has taken place under marketing boards is quota values.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lewis: Well, I'll tell you, my friend, that this is one thing I feel free to get up and speak my mind about, even if it is something that may rock the boat. I don't see too many Liberals doing that in Ottawa, or British Columbia.

Interjection.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I may not be here tomorrow, but I'll still speak it.

Anyway, the value of quotas: you can go to the Broiler Marketing Board, and $3.74 a bird is charged against the right to farm in the broiler industry in this

[ Page 4447 ]

province. The broiler board will deny this. You can get appraisals from any appraiser that you want in the province, and you will come up with at least that amount.

The Egg Marketing Board is showing indications of devaluing the quota, which I feet is encouraging. I feel that the Minister has had some responsibility for this happening. He's expressed the view that he's not happy with the high cost of quotas and the cost that it puts on that product.

For those who are interested, the value on an egg marketing quota costs the consumer at least 1.33 cents a dozen for every dozen eggs that are produced in this province.

I don't know the breakdown on the broiler industry, but it's $3.75 a bird. The amount of birds they say are required to be a viable unit is 40,000 birds. So you have a look and see what sort of windfall has taken place in the industry through the past years and still takes place.

Young farmers who are entering the industry have to shoulder that cost and have to pass that cost on to the consumers, and if we don't realize that this happens, then we'd better start to reassess where we're going.

Interjection.

Mr. Lewis: I'll give you an answer on that in a moment. He asks how big the quotas are for the processing plants in the interior. Well, I would say that they are far too small. There have been 11 growers allowed to produce broilers in the interior of the province. They were allowed a quota of 8,000 birds.

Interjection.

Mr. Lewis: I'll tell you, they haven't been allowed in the past. They haven't been allowed to in the past.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Who put the chicken on the earth, the board of the Lord? (Laughter.)

Mr. Lewis: Who came first, a rotten egg or a Liberal? (Laughter.)

Maybe you feel that I am attacking the Minister of Agriculture. I'm not attacking the Minister of Agriculture, because it was a tremendous task to take on to correct this situation. The amount of quota that is out in this province at the present time is somewhere near $60 million in quota. Charge 12 per cent on that quota and you'll see how much consumers have to pay for the marketing rights.

I truly disagree with it. I agree that it is going to be very, very difficult to abolish this marketing right. But I say that it has to be done.

They say that if you criticize, suggest the way it should happen. Well, I'm a farmer myself and I've studied the problems for a long time. My suggestion is this. If a farmer feels he should have complete monopoly in the certain product that he's producing, then he should be prepared to sell and buy his place on an assessed value by independent appraisers.

When he went to sell a production unit, he would receive the appraisal of independent appraisers. Then the quota value would have no way of passing on to the next farmer. That farmer would automatically receive that quota for nothing: a God-given right that I say belongs to every farmer in this province and everybody who wants to go into farming. There's no way that he should have to buy the right to farm.

There has been a lot of comment in regard to Professor Forbes and there's a lot in his columns that I agree with. But I'll tell you one thing: Professor Forbes better get off his soft cushiony seat and go out and spell off a farmer in the field and find out how tough it is or how easy it is.

He makes a comment that a farmer looking after 15,000 birds isn't doing a day's work. He says that they're not efficient. Well, I'd like to ask Professor Forbes how efficient they are in his industry. I'll take agriculture and compare the results that come out of agriculture in regard to professors any day in this province.

Agriculture is the only field in this province where there is complete women's lib. A wife on the farm has every right to do every job she wants to do, and in fact she's encouraged. It's not just a farmer operation; it's a family operation where the whole family pitches in to make it a success. I would suggest that Professor Forbes had better do a little bit of work out in the field and a lot less out of his office. I would suggest that if we followed the courses he says we should follow, he may end up eating the tape out of a computer or something like that because there isn't going to be enough farm products to serve the consumers in this world.

Mr. Phillips: How about Professor Gaffney?

Mr. Lewis: Professor Gaffney has performed far better than anybody you had working under your departments.

If people think that farmers have been ripping off society, they're wrong. There have been some mistakes made under marketing boards; there have been costs in the product that shouldn't have been there. I think for a good instance we could take a look at CEMA where producers were putting in 4.5 cents for every dozen that was produced in this province to pick surplus eggs off the market — something I don't agree with. If we're in an orderly

[ Page 4448 ]

marketing system, we shouldn't be into that much chaos in production.

If I could get one of the young fellows here to pass around a statement, I'd like you to see how much I made for 3,000 fowl that I shipped to a processing plant. Then you'll see how much money the farmers in this province have been making.

While this material is being passed around, I'd just like to fill you in on what happened. Three thousand birds were shipped to Pan-Ready or Scott's Poultry. For these 3,000 birds, they paid $490. Freight was $285. To load those birds onto a truck I paid $55. Three members of my family also worked to load those birds on the truck. We ended up with a grand total of $150.64, or 1.22 cents a pound. Big deal! How much did the consumer pay for that product by the time it hit the shelves? A minimum of 39 cents a pound.

I have criticized boards. I don't intend to quit until I feel some of the injustices are corrected. I feel that the structuring of the boards causes a monopoly. I feel they've worked against outlying areas. I feel that ample evidence was displayed of this in the Garrish report. I feel that Mr. Garrish and his committee did a very, very good job of looking into the agricultural problems in this province.

I'm not going to bore you by going into this report because I'm sure that most of you are aware of the report and the recommendations that came from same. The Garrish report suggested that the province would have to come in with some sort of regulations over boards if some of these problems were going to be corrected. I would suggest that the Minister has brought forward the legislation. There are some parts of the legislation that upset me, because I am a farmer, seeing the police powers that are in those regulations. But at the same time, those powers have been there for years.

Mr. Gardom: That makes them better today?

Mr. Lewis: No, they don't. We have bootlegging in farm products, the same as we do in many other parts of our economy.

I would just like to say before I take my seat that I'm looking for good things to come out of this bill. I'm hoping the Minister will be strong. He's going to have to be strong because he's going to be moving against special interest groups. But I think that he's justified in doing so. If these actions aren't taken, we'll be failing down on our job.

Mr. Gardom: I notice my friend over there jumping up and down, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't too sure whether he's trying to catch your eye or do something else.

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: Stretching, my friend. Now, don't use up my 30 minutes. Be quiet.

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: Well, I'm not going to use 40; you can rest assured of that.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, in my view is doctrinaire socialism at its worse. I think it merely compounds the ills. I don't expect too many people in this Legislature to appreciate what I'm going to say now, but at least give me the courtesy of hearing me, okay?

I think it merely compounds the ills and all of the worse characteristics of the former legislation. I think the public have to again be informed of the amazing powers that it grants which are not only just awesome and broad and sweeping and excessive and frightening but I'd say they're almost Soviet powers. This is power for another board, another group of regulators — people who are not economic producers, as my friend who just sat down clearly illustrated — just another group of regulators, another group of economic meddlers and muddlers. They are people who will have the power under this statute to regulate from the ground, the sea, the lakes, the rivers and forests — I'd say there's a great caveat to the lumbering and logging industry in this province — of every marketing aspect of every natural product in every permutation that one can visualize. " 'Natural product' means any product of agriculture, or of the forest, sea, lake, or river….

Perhaps the people in the other primary product areas in the province in the past have had a degree of succour and warmth in the fact that the powers that are granted under this kind of bill and this type of legislation would not be used against them. But do they have that same kind of assurance, that same kind of confidence or trust in the administration that we now have in this province?

There's no question of a doubt that the stick is there, the club is there. I'd say to all of those people in the logging and lumbering industry, beware, because the powers that are under this Act that have been utilized on the land in the Province of British Columbia for the past 30 or 40 years could certainly today be similarly used and utilized within the provisions of this statute against those two industries.

I'd also say that had the other primary producers faced the powers and the restrictions that agriculture has faced in this province, there would have been insurrection. But they always chose to sit idly by, trusting, I suppose, as I've said, that the powers would not b e used. They're sort of peace-in-our-timers. They're not the type of people that one can truly respect if they ever take a look at a philosophy. If a philosophy is bad, Mr. Speaker, it should be criticized and people should not just hope that it's not going to be utilized against them.

[ Page 4449 ]

It's a pretty strong point: if a power is not going to be used, it should not be given. This, oddly enough, has even come out of the government side in the talks that we've heard so far in the debate on this bill. The all-encompassing powers that are provided under this statute certainly can make one shudder.

Even the word "scheme." The Lieutenant-Governor may establish, amend, and revoke schemes for the promotion of these various things. What a sinister type of terminology that is. If they mean "programmes," why don't they say "programmes?"

We don't find any openness within the bill as to even how people are going to be appointed. We don't find any standard set of procedures as to how the Act will be administered except unto itself, but they're giving complete powers unto these delegated bodies to do what they please. Once again this is the classic example of the legislative authority of this Legislature being totally delegated and abdicated by the elected representative unto cabinet. There's no question that it erodes the power of parliament, and I think it's an extremely bad thing.

We see that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations dealing with the whole of the Act. So it's a carte blanche unto the cabinet. It's a carte blanche unto them.

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: Appeals. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) made a great point of the fact that there is an appeal procedure in here. Well, it's appeal from one's friends to one's friends, and that's about as far as I can see it being a satisfactory appeal procedure. We also find a situation here that if you appeal to this provincial board, and some of the other Members do not have to sit in on the hearing, well they can sit in on a sort of re-hearing.

What happens if there happens to be a saw-off, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that no one will win? They will have power to regulate all of the packing and the storing, the manner of distribution of quantity and quality, and grade and class, of everything out of the sea, everything out of the rivers, everything out of the land — and also out of the forest, Mr. Speaker.

Market freedom under this bill has totally vanished — can totally vanish — make no mistake of that.

They've got powers to carry out advertising. Once again we can have the same type of hoopla that we have under ICBC — great enormous ads saying that they're the only game in town — all at public expense for the purposes, I'd say, of political perpetuation and nothing else but that.

I don't know how they ever got the power to grant ex-parte injunctions in here. You tend to think that the socialists would turn pale at the thought of having ex-parte injunctions. But the board can get those, Mr. Speaker. A person who's harmed by the boards cannot.

It's a totally one-sided Act insofar as the powers that are given to enforce the provisions here. It's a one-sided law, Mr. Speaker — no protection for the public, no protection to the people who are wronged by administrative action, but every bit of possible protection one can visualize for the people who are administering this kind of a bill and this kind of a statute.

The onus of proof even is shifted. The burden is on the accused. For all practical purposes he's guilty unless he can prove himself innocent — which, surely to goodness, again is against some of the very basic philosophies that we've tried to spend 500 or 600 years in improving.

But where can you find any value out of the proposal? What assurance can we find within this bill of there being a better product? What assurance can we find of there being a fairer return to the producers, or a fair price to the consumer? I say there's none.

And what's been the value, Mr. Speaker, of the marketing boards to this province? The farmers, as the last speaker has indicated, still say they're getting short change. The consumer: he still says that he's not getting a good product and he's paying too much for it. What does the board suggest — to subsidize and perpetuate inefficiency? I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that the people in this province and the people in this country are fed up with that kind of a philosophy.

The consumer still complains of product quality and he still complains of the exorbitant price. Have the marketing boards helped him? I'd say no way- at all. Have they lessened the spread from crop to pot? No way at all. Have they ever grown a single potato or produced a quart of milk or a dozen of eggs or box of apples? No way at all, Mr. Speaker. But they have created false standards, and they have pitted Canadian versus Canadian. You know, we talked about import taxes and export taxes and free trade throughout the world. We've got Checkpoint Charlies, Mr. Speaker, all across Canada concerning Canadian-grown, Canadian-produced and Canadian-marketed-and-distributed foodstuffs.

To a Canada one strong and individual, I'd say,,'my foot!" These boards have served to contribute to the balkanization of this country. And look at this province. Look at the egg marketing board, for an example. It has contributed to the balkanization of this province. What have they done? Well, they've certainly created quota fiefdoms which have been traded like taxi licences in the market. But the socialistic answer to everything, Mr. Speaker, seems to be to create a structure, form a committee, have another bunch of armchair bureaucrats and regulate people from the cradle to the grave and call that progress.

[ Page 4450 ]

I say that what should be done in this country, Mr. Speaker, and certainly in this province, in this kind of legislation is to start a massive programme to phase out this kind of non-productive nonsense and not beef it up. Do we ever hear of a board being cancelled or closed out if it does a putrid job? No way. Once a sinecure, always a sinecure. And if they're all so almighty great, Mr. Speaker, why can't they stand on their own feet if they're so darned good. Let the public make an assessment of them like they do with government, and if the public reaches the conclusion that they're bad, throw them out.

Let's put that kind of a thing to a plebiscite. Let's put that thing to a plebiscite. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that so many of these boards would be turfed out it'd make Exodus look like summer stock. There'd be no end of people who'd think of nothing better than to try to pitch the first ball in that kind of an exercise.

The boards, Mr. Speaker, are a law unto themselves and this bill is just a more-so, a Big Daddy board. They have constantly created false economics. They are monopolies, as everyone in this House expressed. They are incapable of being attacked or adjusted from without. They have little or no public input and little or no public accountability.

There have not been any evident savings. There has been little, if any, evidence of improvement or quality, and the public is fed up with them. If this government calls it progress to compound and perpetuate a bad system, the public doesn't, and I think the public is right.

Mr. Smith: It's a pleasure to take my place in this debate on the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, because I believe that it's just one more cop-out by the Minister in an attempt to convince the people….

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

Mr. Smith: The mike's on, thank you. Would you take your own seat if you intend to speak? After all, just because you would like to aspire to that position, it doesn't mean that you've made the grade or that you're anywhere near it. It could be that you're at least 10 stations removed — 10 at least. By that time there'll be no hope; as a matter of fact, Mr. Member, by next election there'll be no hope.

I was just suggesting, Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted that this bill as it is prepared and before us this afternoon is a standard NDP cop-out. When they have been confronted, now as in the past, with serious problems, rather than provide a solution they provide another piece of bureaucratic legislation and try to suggest to the public that the legislation before the House is somehow mysteriously going to solve all the problems that we face in a rapidly changing society.

The game plan is so familiar that it's becoming monotonous, Mr. Speaker — monotonous particularly when we consider the fact that it is not in any way going to provide a solution for the problems of the primary producers of agricultural products. They are the people who, at this point in time, certainly have suffered far more than anybody else by the exploitation and sale of their product for a price that did not even return to them their cost of production. There's no question about that.

If you're a little hungry, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), why don't you go out and have an early supper? We wouldn't miss you one little bit.

Mr. McClelland: Make it a long one — about six months.

An Hon. Member: He will.

MR. SMITH: So it won't help the primary producers in the field of agriculture. It's not going to help those people who are in the distribution of farm products, although some people would like to point at them as a bogeyman. I've never heard any evidence before this Legislature or before any committee of this House that indicated that they in fact were people responsible for higher prices to consumers.

Certainly a bill such as this will in no way help relieve the problem of the consumer who, with some justification, feels that the price he pays for the products which are produced in British Columbia are too high.

So who is the boogey-man? Who is responsible for the fact that beef cattle which sell live weight at 30 cents a pound — and that, incidentally, is not even return of the cost of production — by the time they go through the system and become sirloin steaks on the block sell at $2.95 a pound? What's the problem? Where's the difference?

Well, it's certainly known to most people who deal with the agricultural industry that if the farmer gets 30 cents a pound live weight, automatically the carcass weight of that beef will be increased by another 30 cents. So we have 60 cents a pound. The carcass will not dress out, as the Minister knows, as a 100-per-cent product. There's another loss there through cutting and trimming.

So let's assume that the live weight, which today sells on the market at 30 cents a pound, is somewhere close to a dollar by the time it's processed. But obviously there must be something in between there that's causing an increase in that dollar so that the meat, when it's produced and marketed over the block, requires a price of $3 a pound or very close to it.

Perhaps, if the Minister is going to suggest that the problem is partially in marketing, he should also look

[ Page 4451 ]

at the problems of distribution. Also, how much money in actual cents per pound does it cost to produce and market a pound of beef, taking into consideration all of the people who handle that between the time it leaves the primary producer at the farm and the time it is marketed over the counter by a meat market or one of the large grocery chains?

Certainly there is a cost involved for the labour that is required to market that beef. Perhaps the Minister, if he is as concerned about the marketing of products in British Columbia as he seems to be, should take a look at some of these problems and get, if he can, a correct evaluation of what it really costs in terms of labour for each pound of beef that's produced. That's one area the Minister can be looking into.

It's almost amusing — but it is not amusing — that the Minister who produces this bill has not taken an equal amount of time to find out what is involved. Or is that a no-no in the NDP? You're afraid to delve into the actual costs between production and the consumer just in case you have to report to somebody some facts that they're not prepared to accept.

As I said, it's a game plan that's really familiar. Whenever you have a problem in marketing, the Minister of Agriculture forgets about positive solutions. His answer to the problem is to establish another board, another commission, another layer of bureaucracy at substantial salaries and not really deal with the problem at all. It's just a way to pacify people and to make sure that, politically speaking the Minister touches all the bases. And in doing so, he provides another number of jobs and employment for party hacks within the system. But it doesn't solve one little problem either for the producer of primary products or for the consumer.

Make sure, while you're setting up the board, Mr. Minister, that you provide the widest discretionary powers possible in the hands of the cabinet so that just in case you want to make changes or switch from one direction to another or do a 180-degree turn, you have the ability to do it by order-in-council rather than ever return to the floor of this Legislature to justify your actions.

You've allocated authority by statute which goes, in my opinion, far beyond any requirement that we have with respect to the marketing of natural products in the Province of British Columbia. Why? Is it just in case there's a possible loophole that you haven't heretofore provided for?

I suggest that it must be a piece of cake for the people involved in drafting bills for the NDP to whip up everything or anything. They certainly have a format which is recognizable after two years in office. You provide the widest powers possible. You allocate authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and you cover all the bases, just in case there's something left out. But for goodness' sake, in the legislation you provide, forget about solving any of the problems of either marketing or of consumption.

And while you're at it, centralize the maximum amount of authority in the hands of the cabinet in Victoria. Make sure you cover all the bases, Mr. Minister. Remove spending powers from the Members of the Legislative Assembly, just in case you want to authorize some expenditure that would be a little bit embarrassing. You permeate the statutes with compulsory features and then, after this bill has passed the House, I'm sure you've already been in contact with Dunsky and associates to convince the public that you have performed a super-sensational service in their own best interests.

To all this I say it's as phony a solution as believing the Canadian mint turns out three-dollar bills. It won't solve one problem in the marketing area of production in British Columbia.

The whole unfortunate outcome of this bill, as I see it, is that it will do nothing to increase returns to the primary producer. After all, if your increase returns to the primary producer, is it not also possible that you would create more employment in British Columbia instead of less? I think that's a distinct possibility. By allowing those people involved in the farming economy to reap more than just a bare existence, you will find an increase in the employment opportunities in the Province of British Columbia.

Just in case the Minister has forgotten, there is a great need for employment opportunities in this province. There are a lot of people unemployed, Mr. Minister. Those people who ordinarily would look to the forest industry for employment are now looking at unemployment insurance cheques for whatever length of time that will cover them. And then where do they go from there?

Are you seriously suggesting that by some means this bill is going to help provide employment for those people who today do not have jobs as a result of a depressed lumber market in the Province of British Columbia? I doubt that.

Do you think that the introduction of this bill will guarantee a better product or a product in increasing quantity to be marketed in the Province of British Columbia? I don't think so.

It's an unfortunate situation, Mr. Minister, that we stand in this House today and debate a bill which in many respects, I suppose, is designed to replace some of the responsibilities of the present marketing agencies and have to consider that half the world will go to bed this evening hungry.

Certainly, the marketing boards — and we have a number of them in the Province of British Columbia — were created for a purpose. That purpose was to try to maintain better standards, better quality and a better return to the people marketing the product.

[ Page 4452 ]

Now, unfortunately — and I think we're all aware of it — occasionally the marketing boards have worked in a manner which repressed or suppressed production of farm commodities. And that's unfortunate.

That's unfortunate because there was never a time in the history of the world when the masses of population who were undernourished and underfed need more attention than today. Instead of reducing production, we should be calculating means of increasing to whatever capacity possible the production of the farm units now operating in the Province of British Columbia. I think it could be done, Mr. Minister, but I don't think it will ever be done with the introduction of this bill.

Will this bill in any way relieve the consumers of rapidly escalating prices for the products they buy? I don't think so. I don't see how that it's ever going to help that particular segment of our economy, and believe me, when you talk about consumers, you're talking about almost everyone. We are talking about everyone who lives in the Province of British Columbia, because they are consumers and they're concerned about the prices they pay. This bill isn't going to help them.

Tell me then, Mr. Minister, why did you not meet with the existing marketing agencies and suggest to them that there are problems of production and return, and see if they didn't have a few ideas or would help you increase production without decreasing the return on the product they produce.

An Hon. Member: Is this a Don Lewis Guarantee?

Mr. Smith: Is this a Don Lewis guaranteed-income bill? Is that what it is?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Right on.

Mr. Smith: Well, I challenge the Minister of Agriculture, when he closes second reading of this debate, to show us in concise, concrete terms how this particular bill will help increase returns to primary producers, how this particular bill will guarantee a better product or a better quality in the marketplace. What number of additional people the passing of this bill will provide employment for in the Province of British Columbia? I challenge the Minister to show us in definitive terms how this bill is going to help overcome rapidly escalating prices in the Province of British Columbia.

It's an unfortunate thing that we have to read in the daily media about farmers who are severely distressed in times when production should be the primary objective of every person engaged in agriculture.

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: Yes, fine, I will. Thank you, Madame House Leader. I see that you are prepared to accept an adjournment, and there are a few points that I would like to make after supper, so I would move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.