[ Page 4453 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting

Point of order

Basis of timing debate limits. Mr. L.A. Williams — 4453

Mr. Speaker — 4453

Mr. Gardom — 4453

Mr. Speaker — 4454

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4454

Mr. Bennett — 4454

Mr. Cummings — 4454

Mr. Speaker — 4454

Mr. Smith — 4454

Mr. Speaker — 4455

Routine proceedings

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, 1974 (Bill 165.

Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 4455

Mr. McGeer — 4458

Point of order

Possibility of comments being sub judice, Mr. Speaker — 4459

Mr. McGeer — 4459

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 4459

Mr. Speaker — 4459

Mr. McGeer — 4459

Mr. Gibson — 4460

Mr. Speaker — 4460

Mr. McGeer — 4460

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 4461

Mr. Speaker — 4461

Routine proceedings

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, 1974 (Bill 165).

Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 4461

Mrs. Jordan — 4462

Mr. Steves — 4467

Mr. Kelly — 4470

Mr. Morrison — 4472

Mr. McClelland — 4472

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4478

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

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, 1974

(continued)

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the event which occurred just before the dinner adjournment, concerning the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), could the Speaker advise us on what basis the timing is conducted?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I'd be glad to explain that, At the moment the timing is done by the Clerks who make a note of the time the Member rises, and inform me, if I'm in doubt on the matter, or if another person takes over in the chair. But, unfortunately, because of their other duties it's becoming rather onerous on them, the result of which we're trying to find at the moment a neutral timekeeper. I think the ones who are keeping the time the most in this House are the Hansard operators who have to keep the time for all the tapes. So the purpose is to have somebody indicate to the Speaker an accurate timing of the speeches so there'll be no doubt, and every Member will be treated the same.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: All right. I think you'll have to rely on the Chair to be fair in keeping the time and treating every Member the same.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite finished yet; perhaps the Member for South Okanagan would defer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that advice. Because this is a new procedure and being aware of the procedures that are applied in other parliaments, is it the intention of the Chair on such occasions to accord to Members, who may then be on their feet at the moment of being advised of their time, the opportunity to complete very briefly any such remarks as they may then be in the process of making to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The only way I can see….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If you look at the wording of the rule, it says that the Speaker… I think it says "shall"; it's pretty mandatory if you look at it. In closing off a speech there's no extra time allotted and the Speaker doesn't have the discretion to allot it unless the House gives that discretion by the Member, who is about to finish his time, asking for leave of the House. Then I think the House would like to know how long he's going to be, but I don't think there's any discretion.

If I can get the House to agree, I can arrange a two-minute warning so you will have time to shape up the ending of your speech.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that advice because it is obvious to all Members of the House, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, or based upon your experience, that it isn't always possible to end one's particular thought in mid-stride. I think that if some leeway, however brief, could be permitted, then it would be advantageous.

Mr. Speaker: I've taken up a proposal to the Members of different caucuses, hoping that they would negotiate this between themselves as a method of signaling to the Hon. Member who is speaking. I, for my part, have some signal that I need that tells me when they're closing off their speech and the time is up. Now, I'm trying to keep that private along with other lights I have under my desk. But if you want to see it, I could arrange to have it a little higher, so you can see it.

An Hon. Member: What are the other lights?

Mr. Speaker: I have lights for the television lights; they show whether they are on. I have lights to show that the normal lights are on.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Does that make you a bright character?

Mr. Speaker: I try to keep bright.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, one question. I gather that traffic lights for the purposes of debate have been installed in the House. Is that correct or incorrect?

Mr. Speaker: No, not for the purpose of debate. There's a light up here for me that tells me when the time is up, to form absolutely impartial judge of the matter of time.

Mr. Gardom: I see. Mr. Speaker, I would very respectfully like to suggest, in the interest of the

[ Page 4454 ]

decorum of parliament, that I think it would be slightly more traditional, if nothing else, that the timing of the debate, if one wishes to give notification to Members that their time is coming to an end, that it could be done by a Page, as opposed to having a bunch of flashing neon lights.

Mr. Speaker: What you like and don't like about it is really a matter for you to discuss with the other parties in the House, come to a decision and let me know what you would like in the way of a warning. Could we now go ahead with the debate?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I would like to suggest that I think that your recommendation that this matter be fully settled with the three party representatives is certainly a necessary step. However, as we're now proceeding to debate, I wonder….

An Hon. Member: Four parties.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Four parties. I'm sorry.

Mr. Speaker, however, until the time an agreement has been reached by the four parties, I wonder if you would provide some advice as to when there is maybe two to three minutes before the conclusion of the speech.

Mr. Speaker: I wouldn't do that without consent of the House.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I would wonder if the House would consent to the Speaker giving that signal?

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader Of The Opposition): Point of order. Mr. Speaker, in regards to the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) who was speaking this evening, can we be assured of an accurate measurement of his time before the debate was adjourned, and is he to be made aware of it? Is he to be made aware of it now before he starts to speak?

Mr. Speaker: We don't have timekeepers like they have in hockey games, but it appears that we have the Clerks keeping time, and I'm assured by them that they have a record which shows he has 17 minutes left, I believe.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Who has been tinkering with the clock?

Mr. Speaker: It is 19 apparently — 19 minutes.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we were keeping time. We thought he had 22 minutes left.

Mr. Speaker: Now you see why I rely upon a timekeeper, because I have other duties to do.

An Hon. Member: On a point of order, who is the timekeeper?

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister Of Highways): They asked about traffic lights, and that does come under my jurisdiction. I don't think we'll put traffic lights in here, but I would consider, for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), a crosswalk. (Laughter.)

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): On the same point of order. Do you think that an intelligent opposition would have called the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) a designated speaker, therefore he could have exceeded the 40 minutes? Would that have been permissible under the rules? I believe so, if you'd like to check the rules, because there has been no speaker over there to exceed the 40 minutes. I mean after all, they can't even oppose properly. They can't even use the laws of parliament.

Mr. Speaker: May we get on with the debate? May I point out that I'm informed that the Hon. Member who has the floor, when he can get it again, had used 19 minutes of his time and he has 21 minutes left apparently, a total of 40.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: This is an adjourned debate and we're now starting again at 8 o'clock, I presume.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that this is a new session of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Please, I think that everybody must be treated the same. Everybody gets 40 minutes, and that includes this Member here. Would the Hon. Member now proceed with this debate?

Mr. Phillips: Somebody just blew the whistle on the Minister of Highways.

Mr. Smith: It's a point that I think is a serious point and should be well clarified — that we are now in a new sitting of the House, are we not?

Mr. Speaker: That doesn't alter the time that has been spent in a particular debate.

Mr. Smith: Yes, but the rules are moot in that respect as far as I can see, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I'll give it my consideration,

[ Page 4455 ]

but I do hope that in the meantime the Hon. Members will get together on a method that they approve for letting them know, without being obviously disturbed by discourteous nudges, that they're approaching the end of their time limit. Now, if you'll come to some conclusion and let me know, I'd appreciate it. In the meantime, I understand that you have 21 minutes left. Would you kindly proceed with your debate?

Mr. Smith: On the point of order that has been raised, before I start speaking and I exhaust my 21 minutes, would you take into consideration the fact that there is nothing in the Standing Orders that refer to a person who was on their feet at the time a debate was adjourned and the next session, which is a new sitting of the House?

Mr. Speaker: What you're saying is, in effect, is that if you extended the principle you're arguing for, you could adjourn after 39 minutes and then demand a new 40 minutes when you came back. That would be manifestly unfair to everyone else.

Mr. Smith: I'm not arguing for or against, Mr. Speaker. All I'm suggesting is that I think it's incumbent upon you to research the rules to find out exactly where we're at in this problem.

Mr. Speaker: I'll be glad to look it up and see what the result is, but in the meantime, would the Hon. Member press on?

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order. It's my impression that the House Leader, in the absence of the Premier who's been away today again, called the House back a half-hour early at 8 o'clock instead of the usual 8:30, probably to allow the Member the extra time to speak.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member proceed with his speech?

Mr. Bennett: Will he get 40 minutes?

Mr. Speaker: No. He gets the same as everybody else on this debate.

Mr. Smith: It's a different sitting.

Mr. Speaker: That has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Mr. Smith: Yes, of course it has. Of course it has.

Mr. Speaker: Well, then, you give me your authority for it before you argue in favour of such a proposition.

Mr. Smith: You give me your authority, too, for your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I made the rule.

Mr. Smith: What's your authority?

Mr. Speaker rises.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! May I inform the Hon. Members that in every parliament where they have a time limit on speeches they apply it in the way we apply it here. If you know any that don't I would appreciate hearing about them.

Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.

Mr. Phillips: On a point of order, I would like to know if this can be referred to from now on as mechanized closure.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member for North Peace River proceed with his speech, please?

An Hon. Member: With his 40 minutes.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to resume my place in this debate, and I would like to start by saying that it was interesting to note the attitude of the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) in yesterday's vote. While I can't reflect upon it, and I won't, I just say that it was interesting, very interesting, to note the position taken by the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain on a motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) to hoist this bill for six months.

I can't help but reflect as to why a Member of the government would vote against his party, why a Member of the government would get up and support the opposition in a motion to hoist the bill, unless there was some peculiar or particular circumstances that we were unaware of — without offering one word for or against the particular proposition.

Certainly I would suggest that it is a little unusual, but then I think we have to consider the whole context of this bill. This bill deals with natural products marketing in British Columbia. In that context I presume that all of us in this House are aware of the fact that the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain is engaged in a business which markets certain basic food commodities and products.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Smith: Now there are a number of firms

[ Page 4456 ]

that sell ice cream in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. There are firms that operate under the auspices of a franchise, I presume, from Tastee-Freez. There are firms that operate under the auspices of a franchise issued to them by another organization known as Big Scoop, and there are also, as I recall, firms in British Columbia operating under the heading of Dairy Queen.

Mr. Phillips: Do they pay for their franchise?

Mr. Smith: That is also, I believe, a franchise dealership in the Province of British Columbia.

So all I can say is: what was the Member afraid of when he voted with the opposition?

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: Well, perhaps the Member is a little embarrassed over the fact that 10 cent ice cream cones now cost 30 cents.

An Hon. Member: Too much water.

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, and they've got holes in the middle.

Mr. Smith: And there is far more powdered milk involved in the process of manufacturing ice cream today than ever before. Perhaps that is a matter of concern.

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Time, time!

Mr. Cummings: The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) inferred that Dairy Queen operators are breaking the law by using powdered milk. I wish him to withdraw that.

Interjections.

Mr. Cummings: It's slander. Withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the proper course would be that at the end of the Hon. Member's remarks, if you have any objection or correction to make to a statement that affects you, then make it at that time, please.

Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly…. I didn't, in my opinion, make any statement that was slanderous, and I didn't refer to the operation of this particular Member except that he operates under a franchise dealership and he sells ice cream. That's a matter of fact.

It is also a matter of fact today that an ice cream cone that we used to buy for 10 cents — you know, a nice, rounded ice cream cone so high that every child enjoyed — now sells for approximately 30 cents, and I doubt that there is the same food value in it today that there was six months or two years ago.

Mr. Phillips: It's all plastic.

Mr. Smith: Now it's all fluff and feathers. But the children are still paying 30 cents.

Now is it fair that people engaged in that enterprise should rip off little children and sell them a 10 cent ice cream cone for 30 cents? I wonder if perhaps the Member read the Guide to Agricultural Services published by the Minister of Agriculture. Look on page 14 where it refers to soft ice cream research. A research programme in cooperation with various Health departments for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of soft ice cream in counter freezer outlets is underway at the present time, as I read this. Well, perhaps he knows more about the results of that particular research programme than we do.

I wouldn't want to suggest that soft ice cream is the only ingredient and the only marketable product in which the public is being ripped off today. What about candy bars which have a wrapper twice the size of the candy bar itself, so that when you get down through the wrapper you find a bitty square of chocolate inside?

An Hon. Member: That's not very sweet of them.

Mr. Smith: I think that the Minister and the particular Member shouldn't be chastised just for his business alone, because it is happening in other businesses as well.

These are some of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) must have been concerned about. If he wasn't concerned about it, certainly he was prodded by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) to investigate. Did I get it right? Consumer Services  — not Consumer Affairs, Consumer Services.

I'm sure that she's a very conscientious Minister and she's really concerned about the rip-off of the public and the rip-off of little children who have their 25 cent allowance. Are they being ripped off when they buy an ice cream cone today? Are they being ripped off when they buy a product which at one time was made of natural dairy products and which today is made mainly out of powdered milk and substitutes?

I think perhaps the Minister should investigate that as well as some of the other products that she speaks about publicly. I think that is one of the areas the Minister could be concerned about in her

[ Page 4457 ]

deliberations and in the manner in which she prods the Minister of Agriculture.

Now I would like to move on to another area or two, and I would like to suggest and ask the Minister of Agriculture how, in his opinion, this bill which is before us today will put. one more pound of meat on the consumer's table at a less expensive price than it is today — one more pound of meat, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, without hurting the primary producer.

If anybody watched TV tonight they probably watched the same programme I did in which the news broadcast indicated that the price of certain beef products was going to be reduced by 20 per cent.

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: Grass-fed cattle, it said, which means that they're certainly not prime….

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: A 20 per cent reduction? No wonder there will be a 20 per cent reduction, because the price of beef to the producer has certainly gone down more than 20 per cent in the last six months. I think that that's still a rip-off if the meat markets are only going to reduce grass-fed cattle by a price of 20 per cent.

I'd like to know from the Minister of Agriculture how this bill will get one more apple delivered to a consumer at a cheaper price; and I'd like to know if this bill is going to somehow provide a fairer price to a farmer who markets potatoes. So far, the Minister has been very reluctant to bring to the attention of this House just how this particular bill is going to help either the producer or the consumer.

Mr. Minister, how much cheaper will eggs be after this bill is in effect and the majority on the government side of the House has made sure that it's passed? How much cheaper? Will the eggs be down next month after this bill has passed through all three readings in the House? How will this bill reconcile a fair return to grain farmers and producers of hay? How will it do that without placing increased production costs on the people raising livestock and operating feedlots? Tell me, Mr. Minister: how is this bill going to solve that problem?

What is your answer, Mr. Minister, to the Quebec problem where farmers reluctantly slaughtered 600 head of cattle because they felt it was the only means that they could use to draw to the attention of the government, and of the public at large, that the return they received for the cattle or the calves that they would market did not even pay them the costs of raising those calves? This in a time when people go hungry.

Do you think, Mr. Minister, that those farmers did that without compassion? I don't think so, without fully realizing that part of their lifelong desire to maintain a viable farming operation was going down the drain into the same pit as those cattle — those calves. Do you think that they did that because they wanted to? Not on your life, Mr. Minister. They did it because they wanted to draw to the attention of the people at large that the product they had to sell did not return to them as much as it cost them to raise it. That's one of the things that we should be debating, not an Act that has no substance, really. The Act in itself is going to do nothing for either the producer or the consumer.

What about closer to home? What about right here on the Island, Mr. Minister? What about the farmers in Saanich who have indicated to this Minister that they will have to go out of farming? Saanich peninsula farmers are being forced to take land out of production because they can't get seasonal labour to help them harvest their crops. This year, half of Bill Mattick's crop of peas and beans rotted in the fields because no one wants to work for $2 an hour anymore. Is that part of the problem — nobody wants to work for $2 an hour? Assume that is part of the problem. If the farmer pays them $4 an hour, will the Minister guarantee that that increase will be reflected in the price that they receive for the product that they market.

You know, the Liberal Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has quite a bit to say about the position of the former government. Let me say this: we're in changing times and changing conditions. The NDP came into power on the basis that they were going to do something for the little man in society.

An Hon. Member: What are you doing?

Mr. Smith: What are you doing, Mr. Minister? That was your promise, not only to the people who are….

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: If you would like to make a speech, why don't you ask the Speaker for your turn in the debate? (Laughter.) You've already spoken in this debate….

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): He's got some time left, though.

Mr. Smith: …but, unfortunately, had so little to say he only used about 10 minutes of his time this afternoon and exhausted his right to speak again in the debate.

Interjections.

[ Page 4458 ]

Mr. Smith: But I'll tell you this: if he had no more to say about this particular bill than he had this afternoon … one of the fat cats from the North Shore who knows very little about farming or the fact that this particular bill will do nothing for either producer or consumer in the Province of British Columbia.

Let's talk about the farmers in the Saanich peninsula. It's a fact that they find themselves in a position where they're being squeezed out of the farming industry.

What about the Cariboo where people raise cattle — lots of cattle, Mr. Minister — and yet have had to sell them in the last several months at a price that does not even return to them the costs of production? What are you going to do about that? Is this bill going to solve that problem?

Half the world is starving, Mr. Minister, and the answer in B.C. is regulate production and impose one more layer of bureaucratic authority on top of the layers that are already there. I suggest that this isn't going to do anything to solve any of the problems of production and higher prices, and it'll not solve the problems of the marketing agencies who, I'm sure, are grasping with the problems and trying to find an answer. So the only thing I can say, Mr. Minister, in all charity, is that this bill is a red herring. It's a political red herring with no solutions.

I'd like to know, Mr. Minister, what attempt was made before this bill was introduced to meet on a serious basis with existing marketing boards. I suggest there was none. Was there any attempt to suggest to them that there was a need to overhaul the existing marketing system in terms of 1974 problems? I suggest there was none. Did the Minister conveniently forget his own motion on the order paper? Apparently he did.

And what input, Mr. Minister, did you solicit from the people most affected by this legislation? I suggest none. How will this bill in any way increase employment opportunities in the Province of British Columbia in the farming area, in processing plants, or in actual consumption of basic agricultural products?

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Hon. Member, I thought I should let you know that you have just a little less than two minutes.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your interruption.

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister Of Economic Development): The end is near. (Laughter.)

Mr. Smith: How is it going to overcome these problems? I suggest that it won't.

Mr. Speaker, in the past two years we've been subjected to ICBC and all the problems that we became involved in with a government monopoly.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Smith: We've been involved in a rentalsman at $43,000 a year, and it's an experiment which has resulted in nothing that you can actually put your hand on as a tangible benefit to the people of this province.

We've been involved in a Land Commission, only to find that whatever they tried to do was reduced and rendered sterile by cabinet interference.

Now we're to become involved in a superboard which is to be all things to all people. It won't, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. It seems to be the type of disease that has afflicted this government, and it's out of control. Thankfully, before long in my opinion, the disease will be fatal and we'll be able to pass on to better times in the Province of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Did Air West get here on time? (Laughter.)

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): I think I rather like this 40-minute rule. (Laughter.) A decided advantage. How do you get rung out, Mr. Speaker? — I wasn't here this afternoon. Does a bell ring for the count of 10, or whatever it is?

Mr. Speaker: No, I stood up. (Laughter.)

Mr. McGeer: Do you get deducted the heckling time, or is it just 40 minutes straight through, no time-out?

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak for 40 minutes….

Mr. Bennett: Do you want to know what bill we're on?

Mr. McGeer: I'm going to vote against it. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I intend to vote against this bill is because the public is beginning to realize through Beryl Plumptre — bless her $40,000 a year salary — that marketing boards are really there to reduce competition.

An Hon. Member: What do you make at UBC, Pat?

Mr. McGeer: Not enough, not enough. (Laughter.)

Except professors are going to go on strike, I am told. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the marketing boards are there to keep the prices up; they're there to reduce competition; they're there to make sure the public

[ Page 4459 ]

pays a very generous price, usually well above what comparable consumers are paying on the other side of the border.

The scheme is a fairly simple one — it's easy to understand what's happened over the years. You start an egg marketing board in one province, and it's designed to keep the prices up — pretty soon everybody wants to produce eggs. Because the prices are high, people simply don't want to buy eggs, and it isn't very long before the province has a surplus of eggs. There is only one thing you do with a surplus — you send it to another province. Pretty soon all the provinces are producing too many eggs and trying to send their surplus eggs to the other province.

So then what you do is you start a Canadian Egg Marketing Board to supervise the thing for all of Canada. But everybody is producing eggs, and the price is too high. It's fine for the producer but it isn't very long before someone either has to buy up all the surplus eggs, or tell the producers to stop making as many. What the Canadian Egg Marketing Board chose to do was merely buy up all the surplus eggs, but there was no time at all before every available storage place was full of the surplus eggs. Then they had to start putting eggs into every available spare barn, so it was pretty soon that the eggs began to go rotten in the barns, and we destroyed 45 million. The Minister of Agriculture was then importuned to try and sell the eggs to China.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): He was a Liberal.

Mr. McGeer: He was a Liberal.

Mr. Speaker, now we've started to move from provincial egg marketing boards to national egg marketing boards, now to provincial superboards. I suppose it will go next to national superboards to supervise the provincial superboards. Unfortunately, none of it is going to work.

We had an excellent example here in the person of Sy Kovachich. The Premier, himself, took Sy Kovachich on, threatened to kick the censored out of him, sent him to sign an agreement with the egg marketing board, closeted over there in one of the back rooms across the street. But the problem again, Mr. Speaker — there was an agreement signed and Mr. Kovachich agreed to pay up.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Hon. Member, is there not some kind of a case on in relation to these people and on some settlement or other?

Mr. McGeer: I'll tell you what the pleading was. It's public knowledge, and not sub judice.

Mr. Speaker: If it is sub judice, I would not expect anyone to debate it.

Mr. McGeer: It's a matter of public record; it's with the pleadings.

An Hon. Member: That's barrister talk.

Mr. McGeer: I can read those things like any lawyer. The pleadings came out and it makes a very….

Hon. Mr. Lauk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I bring to your attention that to my knowledge there is a case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and it is directly relating to the comments being made by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey and is therefore sub judice.

Mr. Speaker: I think you know the rule, and I'm sure that the Hon. Member would not transgress on that rule of sub judice.

Mr. McGeer: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: So I would take it that you would steer away from your present account of the evidence.

Mr. McGeer: I'm not going to say a word about the evidence; I'm merely going to say what the pleadings said. It's got nothing to do with the merits of the case, one side or another. It's all public knowledge; it's on the records.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the ground is staked out by the opposite parties for them to then, within the grounds that they've staked out, deal with the case that's before a judge. The fact of reading out the pleadings in here, in a sense, would really be, I presume, in relation to some of the remarks you've been making.

Mr. McGeer: I'm merely making statements of fact, Mr. Speaker. I'm not offering opinions one way or another. The facts are stated on the pleadings. It's a matter of public record. It has nothing to do with influencing the judge and he's….

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be a difference of opinion on the point of order that's been expressed by the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development and yourself. I'm not, at this stage, aware of the extent of this. In the meantime, I wonder if the Member could avoid anything that might be sub judice in his remarks.

Mr. McGeer: I will absolutely avoid anything that's sub judice, or might be sub judice. I give a flat guarantee, Mr. Speaker, to do that. All I intend to do is to state what the public pleadings were in that

[ Page 4460 ]

particular case, because I think the public pleadings aren't sub judice.

How did that man get called to the bar, Mr. Speaker? How did he ever get called to the bar? How did he ever graduate from law school? I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Member's knowledge of the law is pretty thin, as you well know. There's nothing sub judice about what I've said or intend to say. The Member is anticipating my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: On the point of order, again, Mr. Speaker, the Member quite obviously was discussing allegations made in the pleadings, allegations of fact that have to be proven in a court of law. To discuss that in this House is sub judice.

Mr. McGeer: He doesn't understand the law, Mr. Speaker. Explain it to him.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I do want to point out to the Hon. Member that pleadings….

Mr. McGeer: It's a matter of public record.

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order, would the Hon. Member be seated for one minute?

On a question of pleadings, they are not proven facts. They are allegations that parties make which they then attempt to prove in court. They may be counter to each other in the statements made in the allegations, and they may or may not be true — that is for a court to decide, not for this House. Any repetition of the pleadings themselves may lead to a question of the public accepting that allegation without realizing it's still to be proved by a court. I would therefore urge the Hon. Member not to make use of pleadings in this House at this stage when the matter is before a court.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the day will never arrive in the Legislature of British Columbia where matters of public record, public record available to any citizen….

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member seems to be unaware of the decision….

Mr. McGeer: Do we not have free speech in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member seems to be unaware of the decision of Chief Justice, as he then was, Mr. Justice Wilson, in regard to repetition of pleadings in the Sommers-Sturdy case. In view of that, it was clear, as far as the courts were concerned, that they do not believe that pleadings of the type that were there mentioned were a matter of public currency and debate when the matter is still to come before a court. It seems to me that the logic which is implicit in that should be the logic that also governs us.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Sommers-Sturdy comparison is an unfortunate one, but I would ask you if matters reported in a public newspaper are not fair repetition in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: I would say that using a matter that has been used in a newspaper at an earlier time and then relating it to a court case, or dealing with allegations that are in a court case, would make it inappropriate to discuss it at this time — until the court has dealt with the matter fully.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: I beg to differ with you, sir, in that anything that is public record is a matter for repetition in this House. No chief justice anywhere can throttle Members who are elected to a Legislature Assembly, and deny the right of free speech in the House.

It's entirely improper to you, sir, to try and lean on the ruling of some judge as to what elected Members may say in the House. We're elected by the people, and we're not here to be muzzled by anybody. Now, I don't intend to transgress on the court, by no means, Mr. Speaker. But I do intend to make it very clear to you and to everyone that we're here to exercise the right of free speech, and every elected Member should do so at all times. It's a matter of fundamental principle. I have no intention of casting reflection on a matter that is before the courts to decide.

But, Mr. Speaker, when something is entered as a matter of public record, then it is for this House to be able to repeat those matters of public record just as an ordinary citizen or a newspaper may do. If we start to pass rules, subtle or implied, in this House that limit in any way free speech, then we're transgressing on democracy itself.

I think we've got to keep that in mind, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister as usual was quite out of order. I've heard this kind of thing done in the chamber before and I deplore the practice, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect to you, Sir, I had no intention of trying to influence the outcome of any court case. But, surely to goodness, if something has been entered in a court of law, it's something which any citizen can get from the court, including a reporter to publish it in a newspaper. To say that that's something that cannot be mentioned in a house of free speech is outrageous. Outrageous!

Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the bill on egg

[ Page 4461 ]

marketing. No, it's the bill on superboards. It's the same kind of thing in a way. It's throttling freedom; it's reducing competition; it's creating a problem that will lead to further problems. The point I wanted to make about Mr. Kovachich, who failed to keep the oral agreement that he made in that backroom across the way…. He failed to keep it.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There's a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that you ruled that it was sub judice. The Member insists on referring back. He is obviously in contempt of your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order, may I point out that the only indication I have at the moment…. I don't know the case that is before the court and I'm hoping to get a copy of the pleading so that I can see what the Hon. Member is driving at. But if he has already made his mind up in his statement on one side of the case which another party to it denies, then, in fact, he's taking sides.

Is he doing that? I don't know that.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: That's exactly what you're doing.

Mr. McGeer: No, Mr. Speaker.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: I have to take the assurance of the Hon. Member that he is reciting it as it is, and I'm not going to dispute with him something of which I have no knowledge. I don't know the pleadings in the case and, until I do, I wouldn't be able to even determine what the issue is that he says that he's steering away from.

Mr. McGeer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that courtesy. Unfortunately, it hasn't been extended by the Minister who was all too quick to leap to his feet before hearing what was said. None of this is disputed by either party or the court, none of it at all.

But the fact remains that Mr. Kovachich, by his own admission, didn't keep the agreement that he made in the backroom.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: That's an allegation of fact, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGeer: No, it's not an allegation of fact. It's something that is admitted to by both parties and it appears in the pleadings on both sides.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Both sides, It's not in dispute; it's a matter of public record. There's nothing disputatious about that.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Can you find out what's agitating the Minister, Mr. Speaker? I can't. (Laughter.)

An Hon. Member: What are you trying to cover up?

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: No subpoenas involved.

But, Mr. Speaker, it illustrates how difficult it is to establish egg marketing boards or superboards of any kind and to enforce whatever regulations these boards may pass. The gentlemen involved are frequently a great deal smarter than those who sit on the boards or those who sit in this House. And, furthermore, they've got all day to sit and think about the problem. That's why it's so difficult for a House or for a cabinet to try and regulate peoples' lives and what they do in the way of production with boards of any kind.

The superboard is being established simply because the ordinary boards didn't work. The government will learn that the superboards won't work either for the same problem that the ordinary boards don't work — namely, you simply cannot appoint a group of people who have enough time or are smart enough to think through all the angles that those who want to avoid the regulations of the board are able to think of in their leisure time.

The consequence is an unfortunate one for the consumer because prices are kept high. Frequently there are arguments as to who will have a share of the profit. In the end, colossal embarrassments are created like the mess the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency has run into in the matter of eggs.

We're going to have Canadian marketing boards for virtually everything before long because a provincial board, once it satisfies the production within its own province, will merely attempt to export the surplus to another province. In defence, that province will set up its own board. Finally, you'll have to have a national board to regulate that.

We're establishing a superboard here in British Columbia, not because of a vote of mine, but it won't be long before there'll be superboards in every province. Then there'll be a Canadian superboard.

[ Page 4462 ]

And no one will be served by it, least of all the Canadian consumer, because it won't have rationalized production. All it will have done is to attempt unsuccessfully to regulate people's lives.

It seems to me to be classical socialism….

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Certainly, certainly. It's a socialist scheme. But it was something that was commenced by Social Credit. I don't lay all the blame at the NDP doorstep.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Coalition.

Mr. McGeer: All I accuse the NDP of doing, Mr. Speaker, is compounding the problem. In effect, that's been their role in office: not to solve problems but to compound them. That's what the marketing board is doing; it's compounding the problem.

I would hope sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, that the government would come to its senses and would realize that you can't regulate everybody's lives successfully; you can't govern with one board and commission after another. It doesn't lead to improved society; it leads to one that's worse. It's the old system which I suppose is the classical approach of the socialists — certainly one that the Minister of human relations or whatever it is has practised fairly well. That's to polish pebbles and to dim diamonds.

The more we try and regulate people's lives, Mr. Speaker, instead of introducing the only thing that works — which is good, honest, healthy competition — the more we're going to run our society down by polishing pebbles and dimming diamonds. In the end we won't have served the average person at all. We'll have led him down the path that leads to a poorer quality of life rather than a better one.

Mrs. Jordan: I would like to bring this debate to a sense of reality, rather than what we've just experienced, and concern ourselves with the problems that we're faced with in British Columbia and the world. I don't think the public want to hear the Liberals relive their one moment of glory. It's my view that the public indeed have already made up their minds on the basis of whether or not the Premier of this province told the truth, just as the public in the United States made up their mind about Mr. Nixon.

It's amazing that such a debate should have just taken place from a very erudite gentleman whose experience in marketing to my knowledge is in imported wines and somewhat canned education, both, I understand, on consignment — a privilege that the producer in the world doesn't enjoy.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: The Hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) asks if I am voting with him. No, Mr. Member, because in my mind this bill puts the producer in the same position as the poor fellow who was accosted by a highway robber.

The highway robber said to him, "Your money or your life."

And the fellow said, "Take my life. I'm saving my money for my old age."

And that's exactly what's in this bill.

It's unfortunate that at a time when we're facing world problems in hunger and death in hunger, we have before us this unfortunate, sloppy and ill-conceived bill.

It's the form presented by the government that has made it necessary for the opposition to depart from the primary concern and the intent of the bill: to establish a system of marketing agricultural products in British Columbia and elsewhere which is at once of benefit to the producer and to the consumer. This important objective has been obscured in the debate by this legislation.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, as other Hon. Members have pointed out, and as I pointed out in another debate on this bill, that it has been prepared without sufficient input from the interested parties who have special concern in this area. It was just a chosen few, just a chosen few who were involved — not all the marketing boards.

What of those who are not members of marketing boards and choose not to be members of marketing boards in this province, but who will be affected without say by the scope of its powers? It is clear to me that the bill would permit the government to exercise executive power over agricultural product marketing boards which is far in excess of what is needed in line with their request to the government to accomplish the objective and satisfy the requests and concerns of producers and consumers.

This is an Act which gives the government unlimited authority to control the marketing of natural products in British Columbia. The government may say that this is not the intent. But, nonetheless, the fact remains that the power exists in this Act to do just that.

The government has gone into the cattle-ranching business. Under this bill there is nothing to stop them from opening up a delicatessen or a chain of supermarkets or a chain of wholesalers.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister Of Health): A couple of medical clinics.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, I understand the medical clinics are already in chains.

With your penchant, Mr. Minister, for invasion into the private sector, we can assume nothing. We can only presume that if the Premier wakes up one

[ Page 4463 ]

morning with the idea in his mind that he didn't make it as a banana peddler and he now wants to go into the business of supermarkets at the taxpayers' expense, he can do just that. There is nothing to stop him under this Act.

It was interesting to hear the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) yesterday, who in her speech conceded that these powers were in the Act. Then she turned around and said that she had no concern about the appointments to the board, even though it isn't in the Act — that there will be consumer representation or producer representation.

In essence, what she asked us to do is not to believe what is in the bill. "Don't believe that we will use those powers; believe what isn't in the bill."

The type of mentality, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say, which is in this Act, the penchant for bureaucracy, the willingness to escalate the cost of government without determining any value for those costs, and the belief that political and social philosophies of the '30s are what is needed to solve the problems of the '70s is what is indeed unfortunate. It is unfortunate that we have to debate this sort of '30s policy when it is dynamic policies and new ideas that are needed at this time in British Columbia.

I would like to suggest that British Columbians are very much a part of and have their special responsibility to the brotherhood of man. As Canadians and British Columbians we are the breadbasket, to a large degree, to the rest of the world. This is at a time when that world's pantry to a large extent is virtually empty. Yet we are here in this House debating policies of the '30s and economic situations of the '50s and '60s.

We have been presented with an authoritarian bill by an authoritarian government which likes to — and has proved that it likes to — carry a big stick wherever it goes. We have been presented with a bill which presumes that the chief problem of natural food marketing is to overcome the economic problems of surplus.

I suggest that we are fortunate indeed as Canadians and British Columbians to have a surplus. We are fortunate to be able to enjoy these surpluses. We would be remiss to implement legislation which is clearly designed to curtail productivity from the food sector of our province.

Today in Rome begins the World Food Conference, commissioned by the United States to in their way try to get a handle on the worldwide food crisis which is now here.

I realize, Mr. Minister, that there are many politicians in British Columbia with high salaries and full pantries who do indeed find it difficult to relate to the problems of thousands of people who will die of starvation in other parts of the world as we sit here debating tonight.

But the facts are before us. The United Nations has called this the most pre-eminent world crisis. If we were confronted by a natural disaster in the world, the world inventory of basic food would be just enough for four days. Four days, Mr. Speaker! And here we sit, debating legislation which is, in its many consequences, in a position to curtail rather than to have a philosophy of expanding food production.

I frankly find it a very disturbing paradox. I am sure that many of the people here tonight and many of the people in this room, and certainly many Columbians, do find it a paradox of our time that while there is an abundance of food in this province and in Canada, hunger, malnutrition and starvation are basic facts of life for over 500 million people in the world — people with whom we share this planet, people who are part of the brotherhood of man.

In most developing countries food production has remained static, while populations have increased to almost astronomical proportions. This is not a new trend. This worsening relationship between food production and population increase has been evolving for over a decade. Now it has reached crisis proportions and it has been so declared by the United Nations and by many other parts of the world.

But is it declared here in British Columbia? No way.

We have a Minister here in the province, the Minister of Agriculture — and now a Minister of Consumer Services — in a government that said their whole philosophy was to be concerned about people, not here but worldwide. They gave money to the Amchitka expeditions; they gave $25,000 to a young man to sail a boat through the Northwest Passage.

But in this House, what does the Minister of Agriculture, who represents that government, say when it became evident through the CBC that producers were slaughtering calves in protest in Quebec? It wasn't to stand up to chastise the federal government for not listening. His position was to defend the slaughter. He didn't stand up to say that it is a disgrace in Canada that producers in this wealthy country have to resort to suppressive means of production in order to try and make a living.

He didn't say that it's a disgrace that the federal government of this country — which has been in since 1961 or 1962 — has so turned deaf ears over the years to the agricultural problems in Canada and to the food problems in the world that we have made very small contributions to the starving nations and that we have in Canada an agricultural situation today where we see a grave full of slaughtered cattle.

I wonder if the Minister has cattle confused with people. There are some of us, Mr. Minister, who didn't see that grave of slaughtered cattle so clearly. We are seeing the grave of slaughtered people in Bangladesh, people who too have a gun to their heads

[ Page 4464 ]

as the cattle did — the gun of starvation.

Mr. Minister, as leader of agriculture in our province, what do you bring before us, what do you suggest?

You know, we've all just had supper not long ago and I wonder what we had? Cottage cheese, shrimp, crabmeat, roast beef, steak? I wonder what they had in Sweden? Swedish meat balls, other Swedish goodies? I wonder what they had in Bangladesh? Water, and for many maybe, if they were lucky, grass.

You know, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest national problems we have in Canada is overweight — high cholesterol counts leading to heart conditions. Some of us have to go on diets and it is very painful to us.

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): What does that have to do with this bill?

Mrs. Jordan: Well, your comment, Mr. Minister of Mines, as to what that has to do with the bill indicates the complete lack of sensitivity and, I would say, morality in your government. If you don't know that, you can sit here chubby as a chicken in a debate on the question of food production, and people are dying of starvation, and all you have to say is: what's that got to do with us? That is the problem. It is the problem of food production, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, when we go on a diet we suffer pangs of hunger, we fuss and we fume and we complain. But those people are on a perpetual diet, and it doesn't do them any good to fuss and fume and complain of hunger because there is no food.

You know this clap trapping of the legal minds and the elitists over there in the Liberal Party really upsets me, because I don't know about you, Mr. Member, but there are times when I go at night and tuck our children in, certainly the youngest one, I look at him and he's healthy and he's well fed. But I've been to other parts of the world, not extensively, but I've nursed in Mexico, and I recall those starving children whose great companions were flies. I think again of what is happening in other parts of the world, and I'm sure there are many other people in British Columbia who do, and who at times have a great deal of difficulty sleeping at nights.

I don't say this world problem is our fault. I don't suggest that in British Columbia we can solely solve that problem. But what I do suggest, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that we deserve in British Columbia, we are capable in British Columbia, of more than this antiquated type of legislation. I think, Mr. Minister, that you are in a position to make an example, to have British Columbia lead in an example to draw the attention of the federal government to the fact that our policies should be changed and we should be going from maximum production and utilizing our surplus to help those people who are starving.

I get so frustrated and furious. You read the history of food distribution and it's just like everything else in life — it's bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy. I say to hell with the bureaucracy. Let's, Mr. Minister, feed the people. And British Columbia could have started.

To my understanding, Mr. Minister, you mentioned 9 million eggs, and then you said: "What are 9 million eggs?" You break that down into dozens, and I believe you said that came to 750,000 dozen, except that you were out a little bit. I believe it comes to 800,000-odd dozen of eggs. But why get bogged down in the semantics?

The point is that if all those 28 million eggs which were destroyed at various phases had been taken and dehydrated and made into powdered eggs, we could have made just a small scratch, just a small scratch on the world food situation. As I understand it, it takes approximately 7.5 dozen eggs, fresh, to make one pound of powdered eggs. Out of 28 million eggs that were destroyed, this comes to approximately 2.3 million dozen eggs, and this could have been rendered into approximately 30,000 pounds of powdered milk.

I think that out of the agricultural disaster fund, I think out of the money that this government is throwing around like chicken feed, the money we are spending on the gold filigree in these buildings, the money that we are spending on $35,000 cabinet desks, a little bit, just a little bit of that money could have been taken. The Premier, recognizing he can't solve the world problems, when he went to Ottawa, instead of going and creating a fiasco in arguing with the federal Members of parliament to gain attention, why didn't he take one of his government jets, land it in Ottawa with a cheque to pay the difference between the cost of production level, which is 65 cents a dozen, to the market price; pay the difference in the price of having these eggs rendered into powdered eggs, and if he wanted to, take the government jet and fly it off to Bangladesh?

That was the idea of solving the world food problem, or even really being able to make too much of a dent, but it would have helped save the lives of some of these children and some of those mothers and some of those people. I predict it would have caused every bit as much sensation and been every bit as newsworthy and certainly a good deal more constructive than the slaughtering of those calves. That, Mr. Minister, is the sort of imaginative thing that we expect from you.

We do expect you to recognize the comforts that we have here. We do expect you to not just say what is one egg, and we should suppress the production of that egg. We expect you to recognize our role in British Columbia in the brotherhood of man. I think there are many British Columbians who are ashamed

[ Page 4465 ]

today for all their concern for the producer, and all their concern for themselves as consumers, that in fact we are in a policy which completely ignores the starving people who are our brothers.

I'd like, Mr. Speaker, to expand on my earlier statement and I feel this Act as been conceived in a 1930s mentality. I'd like to recount briefly what has been the position with respect to feeding the hungry nations of the world over the past 40 years. I'd like to recall for your information that it was during the '30s that it was recognized that there was a situation of world hunger, and world hunger first entered our political arena.

At that time emphasis was placed upon orderly distribution of food surpluses, and that was from the have nations to the have-not nations. At that time it is certainly fair to say that there were vast stocks of food which were being destroyed while hunger prevailed elsewhere. Between the '30s and the '60s agricultural subsidies were implemented by government and they were enhanced by the evolution and the development of marketing boards.

In all instances, Mr. Speaker, the primary objective was to maintain the orderly distribution of surplus and to maintain stability in the marketplace, presuming that surplus was, indeed, a fact of life. Surplus is still a fact of life, but the rest of the world has changed.

The shortage of food that the inhabitants of this planet face is unprecedented in our history. Yet we sit here debating a bill which goes no further than to continue with the same out-of-date, outmoded social and economic philosophies to control surpluses.

I'm certainly not speaking against marketing boards, and I'm not speaking against the need of certain parts of this legislation. But what I am against is legislation that will take us backwards into the future, that ignores what our responsibilities are, and is bound and constipated by insular thinking.

This bill is just another sad example of what this House has now become accustomed to: legislation which will carry us backwards. It has been presented by a government which is obsessed with the cult of authority and certainly which has no concern for the spirit of humanism, which is the commitment of our party. It is obsessed with legislation for legislation's sake, without the benefit of ideas or consideration of what is needed, without innovation.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Laugh if you will, because when you laugh at that, you're laughing at everything I've said tonight, and you're laughing, fat Minister, through you Mr. Speaker…. I withdraw. Apparently fat Minister….

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: But I was looking at the Minister sitting next to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi).

Mr. Speaker: I don't think it's appropriate on any side of the House to make references to the characteristics of some of the Members of the House, regardless of whether it's weight or anything else.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker; I think you over-interpreted what I said. I wasn't referring to any physical characteristic. What I'm referring to is the fat posture that this cabinet is taking, not only in terms of their own remuneration and their own comfort but in terms of their own insular thinking as to the needs of the people in this province and, in this instance, the needs of starving people in this world.

While we're speaking, Mr. Speaker, 500 people will die in my allotted 40 minutes — 500 people! And all the cabinet does is sit there and laugh.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that we do have a bill which is going to create a new and massive and expensive bureaucracy. It's guaranteed in itself and in its structure to increase the cost of production, and this is something that everyone will feel in the marketplace. It does nothing to seek the opinions of consumers and, most of all, it certainly makes no effort to maintain a stable marketplace while recognizing our special responsibilities as British Columbians to our brothers and to the brotherhood of man. As I mentioned before, it's provincial in the most extreme sense, and I don't think it bears any relationship to what is really needed in this province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do agree that there is a need for legislation. But, as I say, this bill in total is not the answer. We need study and we need hard work. We need answers, but we don't need this bill as it's drafted. We need new approaches and imaginative approaches. Frankly, unfortunately, as I look at the Members across the aisle and listen to their giggles, I know that the chances of stopping this bill are slim.

If it becomes law, then I must ask what it is going to cost. This is one of our concerns when we set aside the world food situation. What is it going to cost the consumer and producer here? Will there be value for the money that we're going to spend in administering this programme? Will it serve the consumer? Will it serve the producer? Or will it just be another superboard adding flab to a government and adding costs that the consumer will pick up in the end? Will it serve the producer, or will he have to pick up the cost of flabby government and further narrow his profit margin?

It's an important question, I think, that must be raised about every piece of legislation that this Barrett government brings before this House. Will this superboard pay for itself in services to people? Services to people, Minister of Consumer Affairs

[ Page 4466 ]

(Hon. Ms. Young). Or will it be a post entry in the NDP overrun sweepstakes? This bill will permit the appointment of 10 board members, and there's certainly ample room in it for the appointment of other members. It's another $0.5 million tacked on to the cost of government in this province by appointment, and who will they be?

I'd just like to parallel for you, Mr. Speaker, in case anyone suggests that this isn't based on precedent, this concern for the rising and unprecedented cost. ICBC in July had 1,350 employees. To house them ICBC budgeted $40 million for capital expenditure that year in that government department. Now I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the figures will reveal that the capital cost per employee on the basis of those figures was in excess of $29,000 per employee.

Will this new superboard be 20 per cent, 30 per cent of that cost? Let's just take 10 per cent and give the government the benefit of the doubt. If it's 10 per cent of the size of ICBC, it will be empowered to hire anyone it needs; and this 10 per cent, Mr. Speaker, amounts to a big bill. Based on ICBC that could mean a capital cost of $4,205,000. Will that kind of money, Mr. Speaker, bring the value to consumers and will it bring the value to producers that they want with this bill?

Then there's the power to advertise, tremendous powers in here. What will the friends of the government in Gastown make on these contracts? The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is looking doubtful and thinking I'm smearing his party. Let me quote for you out of today's Sun from the B.C. Federation of Labour convention, when they say, "Cabinet Ministers have obviously lost public confidence." This is the B.C. Federation of Labour speaking about this NDP government that's got all powers in this bill. "Thousands of dollars have been wasted on hit-and-miss advertising campaigns." Hit-and-miss advertising campaigns. Maybe the bill won't be missed. Maybe the bill will be more than $4 million-odd. Who's going to pay for this? How much is the producer going to have to cough up and how much is the consumer, who is the taxpayer, going to have to pay? And how much are all those friends going to make?

I'm certainly in favour of exploring the concept of orderly food marketing at its fullest extent, Mr. Speaker, but, as I have stated, this bill gives no regard for the important position that British Columbia plays in the global world economy and in accepting its responsibilities within the brotherhood of man.

I have stated that it is conceptually derived from political, social and economic points of view which are now history rather than contemporary. I have stated that we have absolutely no assurance within this bill that the cost of its administration will be value for the producer and the consumer. We have no example of the action of this government to assure us or to give us confidence that the people of British Columbia will get value.

There has been no statement from the Minister, from the government or in this bill that we are going anywhere but suppressively in marketing and production of food and that this government has suppressed all thought of its responsibilities and our responsibilities in British Columbia to this terrible, terrible situation in the rest of the world. Five hundred people.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it was impressive yesterday when the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young), as I mentioned, said: "Don't trust what's in the bill; trust what's not in the bill. Trust us." I would suggest that it's no wonder that that backbencher, that backbencher and that backbencher and backbencher after backbencher….

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Member, you say it's the prototype of our bill. Our bill was so outdated we never used it. And this is what we're complaining about. I'm saying to you that there is indeed a need for certain portions of this legislation, but I'm saying to you the whole philosophy behind it is regressive. If you came out of your ivory tower, you'd know what I was talking about.

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Oh, fluff and fuddle! The problem with the federal Liberal government and the problem with a lot of boards and commissions is that they're all flooded up with lawyers. We need more producers and more consumers and more just ordinary people around. And we sure need a good support of ordinary people in this Legislature — ordinary people like those backbenchers who came in here eager and willing and idealistic, with strong philosophies, whether they agree with each other or agree with them, dedicated to work; and all they're asked to do is "keep quiet and trust us."

That's why backbencher after backbencher after backbencher is critical of their own government, as the producers are critical, as other people are critical, in relation to this bill, for not being kept informed.

Mr. Speaker, on the rental fiasco that Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves), that fine upstanding Member states — and I'd like to quote him from The Vancouver Sun of November 5.

He said with all his fire and fury: "MLAs are often left out in the cold." He said further on: "I've asked the Attorney-General to be sure that we have a very thorough discussion before any legislation is brought in." And he goes on to say — this is the NDP MLA for

[ Page 4467 ]

Richmond speaking about his government: "We, the MLAs, have received no word one way or another as to what we're going to have…."

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Member has a little over two minutes left.

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm sure they're applauding because their consciences must be bothering them no end. That chicken-producer who complains about his losses here….

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: "I feel," he says, "that we've been left out in the cold." I'm sure a lot of other MLAs feel the same way.

Yesterday we got another answer from the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) when her own constituency partner…. There is another bill like many others which designs….

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I hope you're going to give me more than two minutes. Other people are taking up all my speaking time — mostly the members of the cabinet — and I have not too much more that I'm going to say here.

This is another bill that like so many of the others was designed in its obscurity and brought to this House in haste as witness the statements of their own Members. Even the second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) got to his feet and voted with the responsible position of the opposition. The bill was faulty, he said. It provided no specifies on consumer representation.

Did he get a chance to say that in caucus? No way. Did he ever see the bill before it was introduced to this House? No way.

The Minister of Consumer Services said: "The Minister wants consumers on the board and I believe him." That's what she said about the Minister of Agriculture. Obviously, the other Member for Little Mountain does not believe the Minister or he would not have voted as he did.

Mr. Speaker, are we to trust the judgment of the first Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Ms. Young) or that of the second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings)? How can we trust anyone over there in view of the statement of the Member for Richmond — "The MLAs are left out in the cold." No discussion on rents, no discussion yet on another superboard…. The track record of this government on superboards is frightening.

I'm just finishing, Mr. Speaker. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association puts it very well. They are "concerned about this establishment of courts beyond the courts." And we are asked to trust yet another board. The second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain doesn't trust this legislation; neither does the Minister and neither, Mr. Speaker, can this side of the House.

As we see it, it's consumer be damned….

Mr. Speaker rises.

Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.

Mr. H. Steves (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like to come in from the cold. In deference to the previous speaker, actually I think it's warm enough in here tonight.

I'd like to say that on this particular bill we've had a very thorough discussion of this in our caucus. We've discussed the principle of this legislation for the past year from time to time.

Mr. Chabot: What about the Landlord and Tenant Act?

Mr. Steves: We're not discussing the Landlord and Tenant Act at the present time.

Interjections.

Mr. Steves: We've discussed it very thoroughly and I support the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the noisy people down here from the opposition.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): Tell us about the land freeze in Richmond.

Mr. Steves: I should think they're warming up in Richmond pretty good, too.

Some Members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, have talked about market freedom — I believe one of the Hon. Members of the Liberal Party. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) yesterday talked about marketing boards discouraging increases in production and was very critical of marketing boards and the agricultural industry — the way it has been run. They were very much concerned that this board that we're setting up would make it worse.

Well, I would like to refer the Legislature and Members to the comments made by the Hon. Minister yesterday when he was talking about the beef marketing back east, across Canada and here in B.C. This is an example of an agricultural commodity where they don't have a marketing board. This is the kind of free marketing that the opposition Members have been talking about, Mr. Speaker. This is the kind

[ Page 4468 ]

of marketing that they are suggesting we should encourage.

Well, I'm much concerned about what is happening in the beef industry. The Minister mentioned yesterday about the slaughtering of calves in Quebec; I'd like to make a comment that's a little closer to home here in British Columbia.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I was a bit late coming over to the Legislature yesterday because I was helping to deliver a beef calf. While this was happening yesterday morning I was very much concerned of what was going to become of this young calf — a day-old calf at the present time.

The lack of profitability in the agricultural industry is such that that calf normally would have been worth around $80, $90 or $100. Yesterday when it was born, instead of being worth that much, it was worth around $10. If I raised that animal to maturity I could stand to lose anywhere from $50 to $100 just in the feed costs alone.

About three weeks ago, I shipped six steers to the auction. We calculated our loss on it. On the steers we paid around 70 cents for them as calves — we sold for between 25 and 30 cents a pound as fully-mature steers. The cost for feed is around $2 a bale for hay and $6 to $8 a hundredweight for grain. Our total loss on six steers was $500.

An Hon. Member: Do you want a subsidized market?

Mr. Steves: Now, this is the kind of thing that is happening to farmers throughout Canada. It's happening to beef-raisers everywhere. This is the kind of thing that the Hon. Member is talking about — subsidies. This is the kind of thing he's talking about when he talks about a free-market economy, when he talks about the marketing board discouraging increased production.

What happened here was that the beef-raisers increased their production and we have a surplus of beef. We found last year there was a shortage, the prices went up to the consumers and people began to pay atrocious prices for the steaks and stuff they bought. Beef production was high and beef-growers were encouraged to raise more beef. We did that. We raised more beef and now we find there's too much beef.

The prices have not gone down on the market — the supermarkets are still charging the same prices to the consumers and yet the farmers are getting a pittance. Now this is the kind of free-market economy these people over here are talking about.

An. Hon. Member: Tell the whole story.

Interjections.

Mr. Steves: I'm telling you why.

Interjections.

Mr. Steves: If you'll just listen, I'll tell you the whole story.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Phillips: Eat chicken!

Mr. Steves: Mr. Speaker, the free-market economists are talking about the law of supply and demand. It's basically what they're talking about. If the supply increases, the prices to the consumer will go down. Well, in this case, if they'd just go and check at the neighbourhood Super-Valu or their Safeway stores, they'll find that the prices haven't gone down — not to the consumer.

This bill will help solve that problem by including consumers on the marketing board. It's the first time the consumers have been represented on marketing boards and these people are opposing it. The first time.

Mr. Bennett: Where? Where? Where?

Mr. Steves: It's in the bill. Read the bill.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steves: Now, Mr. Speaker, marketing boards have been designed in the past in commodities where marketing boards exist to provide an even supply of that commodity from year to year so we don't have the law of supply and demand fluctuating back and forth where farmers are destroyed time and time again.

Marketing boards have been designed to even-out the law of supply and demand and to be sure that there is a standard amount of the commodity available and that the farmers do have a chance to get a fair return on an even basis. One year they might get a fantastic increase in the price — last year, as I said, we got 70 cents a pound for the beef we marketed. This year we're taking a beating.

This is what happens because we don't have a marketing board and we don't have that kind of stable marketing in the beef industry.

Some marketing boards, Mr. Speaker, have worked out very well and others have not worked out too well in the interests of the farmers as the Hon. Member from Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has suggested. I would agree with the comments that he has made.

But I'd like to comment on this particular bill as I see it and how it will help the farmers. In the first

[ Page 4469 ]

place, I see the board representing all farmers on a province-wide basis. Now this has not happened in a lot of our marketing boards in the past. They have not represented the farmers on a province-wide basis but have represented farmers in certain regions above farmers in other regions. This bill will help to solve that particular problem and I think that's a very good aspect of it.

I think also that the marketing boards could make a distinction — and I'd like to make a distinction here — that while regions have been misrepresented, some regions like the Fraser Valley have had better representation on some of the marketing boards. Some of the small farmers haven't had very good representation on any of the marketing boards no matter what region they were in and some of the small farmers in egg marketing in my area have been left out in the cold just like the farmers raising eggs in the interior have been left out in the cold. I'd just like to make that comment in passing.

It's largely been the big producers like the Redicopp's and so on, who have been benefiting by egg-marketing legislation which gives percentage increases rather than across-the-board increases in the amount of quotas.

The second thing that this legislation will do is to be sure that all farmers, not just one commodity group, are represented. This is something that is new and different in the realm of marketing boards. At the present time, with our numerous boards, one marketing board can be helping farmers that produce one thing but perhaps to the detriment of farmers that produce another commodity.

To use beef as an example, and here again I say, okay, we don't have a marketing board, but one of the reasons that the beef prices are down is because farmers raising grain-feeds are getting higher prices and therefore the cost of feed for the cattle has gone up, and we're having difficulty finishing the animals for a reasonable price.

Through a proper combined type of marketing system, then, with formal representation of all the various commodity groups being represented in that superboard, as you're calling it, then there's a possibility of the farmers getting together and not cutting each other's throats as they've been doing in the past. There's a chance for the farmers that raise one commodity of listening to farmers that are represented in the board, in that group, who raise another commodity to be sure that they don't cut into the activities of each other and thereby destroy each other in the process.

The third thing the board will do, and I mentioned it already, is to bring consumers into the picture for the first time and allow consumers and producers to have a dialogue together so that they are not at odds.

Mr. Fraser: Give us the section that says that.

Mr. Steves: It's in there; you read it. The fourth thing it does, of course, is also to set up an appeal procedure, which we have not had in the past.

Mr. Gardom: It's pretty weak.

Mr. Steves: You may consider it weak, but it's better than what we've ever had from that bunch.

Finally, I'm amazed at the opposition to this bill, Mr. Speaker. The bill hasn't really hit out at big business like I think it should have done. The bill hasn't hit out at the middlemen — the Safeway's and the Super-Valus and the IGA — that handle 60 per cent of the food sales in B.C., a $1.5 billion amount of food sales. If I have any criticism of the bill it would be that, that it should actually do something to control the middlemen as well. I think the bill is a good one. My only criticism is that it doesn't go quite far enough.

I'd like to comment on what one farmer told me the other day about local production. Basically we don't produce enough food here in B.C. California, it's suggested by I think 1980, will not be producing enough for its own consumption. We don't have stable markets here; we don't have stable marketing. We aren't producing enough; we aren't self-sufficient. In lettuce production apparently, since the crops were harvested and sold here in B.C., the price for lettuce has gone up three times in the last couple of months, because we don't produce enough. Now stable marketing in lettuce production and market gardening production would help to ensure that the prices don't go up. It can help the consumers quite a bit if we are assured of stable markets in the agricultural industry. The aim of the board, Mr. Speaker, must be to aim for self-sufficiency of production here in B.C.

I think the board could do well to establish controls over imports and exports of B.C. production of food, with the eventual aim of self-sufficiency. Secondly, I would hope that the board would be able to stabilize the prices to consumers — not by subsidy, because subsidies are unnecessary if consumers and producers are able to sit down together and to work out reasonable prices. This can be done with the board that we're suggesting in this legislation. It's open-ended. It provides for this type of dialogue between the producers and the consumers so that they can sit down and come up with a reasonable type of revenue to the farmers that are producing the commodities.

Thirdly, I think that the board has to look to establishing firm prices and markets for B.C. produce and eliminate a lot of the chaos that's existing at the present time in our food marketing — and, of course, eliminating a lot of the chaos that we get from the food chains and retail outlets here in the province at the present time who are taking produce from across

[ Page 4470 ]

the border in preference to locally grown produce, who are contracting out farmland, such as Nalleys does for cucumber production. If you don't contract out with that firm, then you don't grow cucumbers for pickling. Things like that can be handled by the board if it goes into this area, and I suggest that it should.

Finally, I would hope that the board will work towards the eliminating of the chaos and the profits caused by these particular companies in the retail food system. They are really the ones that are bleeding the consumers in this province.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is good legislation. It doesn't go as far as I'm suggesting, but I think it's a first step towards orderly marketing here in the province that will help all farmers, no matter what commodities they're producing, and will help the producer and consumer as well.

Mr. D.T. Kelly (Omineca): I would like to just spend only a few moments giving my impression of this bill that has been introduced. I stand here this evening supporting this bill because of the awareness that is necessary and that I think should be shown by every Member of this House of what is happening in the agricultural industry today. For that reason I stand here tonight and suggest that these Members that are making such a hullabaloo about the bill and trying to belittle it should really try and understand what has been happening over the last few years. Awareness.

Twenty years ago I lived in the Okanagan — or a little more than that. And 20 years ago I was quite familiar with the fruit industry. I certainly knew a lot about B.C. Tree Fruits and the fruit board of British Columbia. In fact, I was antagonistic and a real opponent of that organization. I used to be a free enterpriser and private entrepreneur, and I was in the business of buying and selling fruit.

You know, I used to buy it for 50 cents and 70 cents and 90 cents a box, and I could bring it all the way to Vancouver and I could sell it for 5 or 10 times that sum in many cases. In fact, my customers were the wholesalers in Vancouver. You know, the people that I bought from and paid cash to for those apples indeed thought I was a real boon to them particularly. Of course, at that time there was very little cash around.

But as the years went by the industry never did improve really. There was actual chaos in the whole industry, and for many years I considered that the farmers, especially the fruit farmers in the Okanagan, did suffer from a poor marketplace and poor conditions generally. Even though they were governed by a fruit board, I would have to admit now that the board did keep them from actually going out of business, because at least it did exercise a certain amount of control over the overall industry.

So as time went on, I understood that it certainly did serve its purposes. For those who did try to make a living on the side, as you would want to call it, really they were breaking the backbone of a very important way of marketing a product.

Now being a Member from a north-central riding of this province, and coming from where the standard of living, I don't think, is as good as many of the other parts of the province because of low wages and high costs, I am truly aware of what it costs to live in the interior today.

For example, I live in a town of 1,200 or 1,300 people, and the two main industries in that town are shut down right today. One is on strike, about 400 men, and they have no income hardly whatsoever. That's Endako Mines. The sawmill closed down on the very same day that the mine shut down. So we have about 1,000 people living on a fairly restricted income. We know that food, which is probably the most important thing in their lives at this present time, is an extremely high-cost product.

Well, these people haven't had a chance to participate and buy fruit at prices that are consistent to those on the coast or in the large centres. For example, this early summer cherries started in the local supermarket at 99 cents a pound, and the cheapest they went to this year in that supermarket was 69 cents a pound. Comparing that to the coast prices, that was at least 20 to 25 per cent higher than at the coast. In fact, in some instances, it was much higher than that.

I would have liked to have seen Mr. Ouellette, the Minister from Ottawa, come to the north to try and compare prices rather than…. It was an excellent thing that he had seen the prices in Vancouver, but if he could have come to my town and seen what the prices are, then indeed he would have understood what it is to have extremely high costs.

I am anxious because of these high costs to consumer and with the apparent low return the producer. This is where my concern is. I know — that the beef industry is in chaos. These very same miners are going out and buying live cattle today — the union is — to supply meat to these miners. They're actually buying these animals for 20 cents per pound on the hoof right today. Now those are disaster prices.

You know, I think that the beef industry, many years ago, should have organized and formed themselves into a beef marketing board and there would have been none of this going on today, not at least at those prices. The prices have been a good price, but I am sure that the farmers in my area would at least have been able to make a living. As it is, many of them are practically in the bankruptcy stage and I don't know what is going to happen by next year. There is no sign of this industry coming back to its own for a year at least. I'm afraid

[ Page 4471 ]

that what is going to happen is that many of these farmers are going to sell their animals off, more than they should sell, and what will happen is we will run into a shortage within one or two years' time.

Also, you know, for a fair distribution of our resources — and salmon is one of our resources — I'm sure not enough people are privileged to participate in and enjoy eating good salmon that doesn't cost $2 or $3 a pound. If you go to the coast: "Here's a salmon, take it home." But when you live in the central part of British Columbia or in the north, try and get a salmon up there that doesn't cost you $2 or $3 a pound. I think that for the people in the industry there should be a salmon board to help all people get a fair share of this resource at a fair price.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Homer Stevens.

Mr. Kelly: I've lived in the north for nine years now, and you just can't believe how the population is expanding. Members from the north, of course, they understand this, but when I speak to the Members from the south that there really is a population explosion, even in that area…. One thing I am concerned about is that the Egg Marketing Board hasn't allowed the expansion of egg production in the north. I am concerned about that because the fact is that I think there is too much power within that Egg Board and they are not allowing the area to grow in relation to its population size and that, indeed, we should be allowed to increase our egg production. I would urge this board, the new provincial board, to see that, in fact, this is what does happen, because it is one of the things that is going to happen in that part of the country.

Last year, a plebiscite was taken in the Okanagan to see who wanted to remain within the B.C. Tree Fruits industry. This plebiscite was taken and it was 62 per cent for, and 38 per cent against. Once again, I say that the disparity there is not so great and that, this 62 per cent have a complete control over the other 38 per cent, and I think that isn't quite fair. It is because of that close vote that this provincial board, once again, could have exercised control and overruled this particular vote. I would hope that in trying to manage anything the Fruit Board might do that might be awkward, that if it had to, by its own judgment, it would see fit to do away with a plebiscite of that sort and rule against it, because in this particular instance it had only to do with: "Do you want to remain with or outside of the Fruit Board?"

But there are other instances where that may not be quite the same reason for a plebiscite, and I think that the provincial board would have at least jurisdiction over a matter such as this, a situation such as this. I think that the boards could be formed, that there should be more marketing boards in these instances, because there are other commodities that should be, I think….

An Hon. Member: The carrot board, the turnip board….

Mr. Kelly: No, there are coast vegetable marketing boards and interior marketing boards for vegetables, but there are other commodities, I'm sure, that could have a lot more protection from a provincial board, a board that would oversee the politics of that one particular board.

Interjection.

Mr. Kelly: Well, in travelling with the agricultural committee last year, we saw considerable dissatisfaction with certain boards. I think that in each particular case, because of the politics of that particular board, they were unable to settle their problems, but had there been a board over the whole works, that managed all these boards, then indeed they could have solved those particular problems.

Mr. Gardom: They've got one in Russia.

Mr. Kelly: I think, Mr. Speaker, that many of the Members of this Legislature who were on that agricultural committee could agree with a situation such as that, that indeed they…. You don't have to have it so bureaucratic that it can't have complete management within a short term of time. You don't have to carry on like the courts of the land where you have to wait for two or three months, or a half a year, to get into court. I'm suggesting something that could be practically on-the-spot administration of a decision.

Interjection.

Mr. Kelly: Well, I'll tell you. I think if you look at the beef industry today that you can see the reason why there should be some control in that industry.

Mr. Gibson: Why don't they want it?

Mr. Kelly: Well, I think, Mr. Member, you will see, within a short time, that very same beef industry look for some help from the Department of Agriculture, or from the government generally, in managing their affairs.

Now getting back to the egg business. Everybody thinks that because there has been a lot of publicity about the Egg Board — and egg prices are fairly high — that it is really out of reason. But, you know, not long ago…. Here was an article put out by Mr. Grenby on November 2, and he has a bit of a graph here, and he shows you that in 1949, to buy one

[ Page 4472 ]

dozen eggs it cost you 17.5 minutes of your time in labour. In 1959, it was 16.7 minutes; and in 1969, 11.8 minutes; and this year, for that very same dozen eggs, it would cost you 11.1 minutes of your time. So the actual cost to the individual has gone down considerably and yet, at the same time, the actual cost of construction of a house has gone from three years to this year it would cost you 7.7 years of your complete wages, for the average working man.

So really there has been a lot of good done by the present boards, and it is only when these disputes come into effect that I think the boards would then have to exercise their jurisdiction over them.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for your attention.

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place in this debate to say that this bill will not meet the needs of British Columbia, and it is unfortunate that we should be talking tonight about this particular bill at a time when the conference in Rome is meeting, the World Food Conference is meeting at the request of the United Nations. Mr. Kissinger today has been talking about the world needs for food, and here we are talking about a superboard which will do nothing for the people in the Province of British Columbia, and even less for the people in the world.

The American Secretary of State told that body today that his country, in spite of economic problems that they have, which are considerably greater than the economic problems that we have, but he said that his country would do everything that they could to increase the world supply of food and that they would contribute as much as they could to the world supply. And here we are trying to control it with a larger superboard.

I think that the interests of this bill are very, very small in considering only our own area. The world today is staggering on the edge of a serious economic problem, and we're debating ancient history. We are debating limit and control.

Interjection.

Mr. Morrison: Well, it's still ancient history.

The Canadian delegation today, incidentally, led by Mr. Whelan who expected to speak but wasn't able to because of Mr. Kissinger's long speech, was asked if Canada….

Interjection.

Mr. Morrison: Your turn will come.

He was asked if Canada intended to do as much as they could, and if Canada's position was in any way different to Mr. Kissinger's position. His answer was a flat "no". He said that Canada as a country would do everything it could do. And here we are in the Province of British Columbia on an absolutely reverse track. Canada will propose the establishment of food inventories, but here we are talking about controlling them, shortening them, reducing production.

The world situation is serious. We must use economic and social policy to try to improve the world situation, not just our own.

This bill does not have any specific policy for increasing food supply. It does not have any specific policies for consumers for increasing competition. It doesn't have any specific policies for preventing waste, such as the slaughtering of calves and the dumping of eggs. It doesn't have any specific policies to counter severe damage to the crops and to the herds by weather and disease. It doesn't have any specific policies to protect the interest of British Columbians from the citizens of this province, and also from the dictates of Ottawa and the federal government.

Common sense suggests that our approach should be to increase our food supply. Adding to the bureaucratic jungle in this province isn't going to help it unless, of course, the goal of this bill is to do that exactly — and that is, take over control of all production. If the goal of this bill is to do that, if the goal of this bill is to do those things which are spelled out very plainly in the Waffle Manifesto, then we are on another subject altogether. If the goal of this bill is that, then none of us in this House should support it. The goal of the people of the province today should be to try and feed the world, to try and increase production, to try and see that the needy are looked after.

As you know, tonight in Africa starving millions are receiving less than three ounces of food when it's necessary for at least nine.

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair.]

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I do believe that this bill in no way can be supported by us.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: I just get up slowly. I'm in no hurry to go anywhere. I don't know where you're going. Are you going to China? Yes, you are, aren't you? Has the Premier gone without you? You had better check.

I must thank the Health Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke) for his gracious acceptance of me as the next speaker in the House. I hope you do have a nice trip in China, because we'll still be here when you're gone.

I'd like to speak for a few minutes about this bill, the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act. As I said before, and at the risk of a little bit of

[ Page 4473 ]

repetition, I want to say that the problem with the bill is that the consumer won't save any money; the producer won't make any more money; there's no benefit to our families; there's no benefit to our farmers. So obviously there can't be very much that's good about the bill, except, perhaps, that it might be good for the friends of the party — the New Democratic Party — who are going to get to wallow a little bit more in the patronage trough.

It's probably pretty good for a socialist government which believes in the concept of total control, total centralization and total takeover. The bill certainly isn't very much good for the concept of orderly marketing of agricultural products of the Province of British Columbia.

Maybe it might be good for the Consumer Services Minister (Hon. Ms. Young) who, if I read her correctly, wishes to see marketing boards destroyed because of some misguided or misdirected enthusiasm that she happens to have.

Maybe it's good for the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) who just might be in a conflict of interest position in this whole situation. He certainly has a special axe to grind, as he's pointed out on so many other occasions in this House, particularly with regard to the establishment of a processing plant in his constituency which was denied so vigorously…

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): You've got 75 per cent of the production now. Do you want it all?

Mr. McClelland: …in past debates in this House. It could be called the Don Lewis Bill, Mr. Speaker.

It sure won't do very much for the supermarket shopper. The Minister says he'll have consumers on the superboard. But contrary to what the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) said, there is nothing in the bill anywhere, nothing anywhere in that bill, which guarantees that there will be consumers on the superboard — nothing anywhere. I think it was pointed out before that the only place consumers are mentioned is in a press release from the Minister of Agriculture — the only place.

As the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) pointed out earlier, the Minister on the one hand has told us on other occasions: "We've got all these powers in the bill — that's okay — but don't believe it; we won't use them." Then, on the other hand, he turns around and says: "We haven't put this in the bill but we'll put them in. Trust us."

Flip-flop — the Minister of Agriculture. There is nothing in the bill which guarantees that a consumer will be represented on the superboard in its 8 or 10 or 9 or 3 or 11 members.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: Like the rent control Act, the Member for Richmond was out to lunch when they took that piece out of the bill. The bill won't do much for the small grower, either, whether he be a broiler grower or a hog farmer or a cattle grower — as the Member for Richmond says he is — or a dairy farmer, or anybody else, because the bill doesn't even protect his rights; it doesn't even protect the grower's rights on the superboard.

The federal bill, Bill 176, insists that 50 percent of the members on their board be producers. Not this bill. It doesn't protect the consumer; it doesn't protect the grower; it doesn't save anybody any money; it doesn't make anybody any more money. It's a stupid bill, and it's only another huge bureaucracy.

Nobody gets any guarantees except the government, and the government gets the guarantee of total control.

There isn't any doubt, in my mind at least, that this new superboard is going to be a full-time commission working every day of the week, 365 days a year, at a very heavy cost to the taxpayer and, ultimately, again to the consumer, You know, it's strange, Mr. Speaker, but in the little handful of business that we've had given to us so far in this session — four or five pieces of business — at least three of those pieces of business have made recommendations which would establish new commissions or boards or secretariats or whatever it is you want. That's only in about five pieces of business that we've had this session. My God, by the time the next year is over and the next session is over, we're going to have boards and commissions coming out of our ears, and we are going to have to import NDPers, as we are doing now, from all over Canada to fill the jobs.

An Hon. Member: We'll be "board" to death.

Mr. McClelland: Board to death.

So this bill doesn't give anybody any guarantees. The cost for the full-time salaries of the 10 members: I don't know what they are going to get, but the average cost, I think, if we go with some of the other commissions, is $150 a day for the members and maybe $300 a day for the commissioner. That's no chicken feed, Mr. Speaker — 150 bucks a day for the members and 300 bucks a day or so for the commissioner — $40,000, $50,000 a year for the commissioner. If you don't believe that that cost is going to be reflected to the person who is checking out his groceries at the supermarket, then you don't know what economics is all about.

The farmer doesn't object to having consumer representation on the marketing boards, or consumer input — not at all. In fact, the Minister even told us

[ Page 4474 ]

the other day that the Turkey Board offered to have people come in and sit in on their board, and nobody came. Nobody came, because they were more interested in eggs at the time.

The producer doesn't have any objection to having consumers on the board, because the producer knows very well that if he does have a consumer on the marketing board, he can convince that consumer that the farmer isn't ripping anybody off, and if they're looking for a rip-off, they'd better look somewhere else than at the small producer.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, at least the Minister of Agriculture knows this. I really feel sorry sometimes for the Minister of Agriculture, because he has to fight off the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis); he has to fight off the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young); he has to fight off the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) — who's leaning over his shoulder at the present time; and he has to fight off the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who doesn't want marketing boards either. The poor Minister. Yet he stands up and defends the marketing boards in the House. I think he's got a lot of courage. He must have a lot of courage.

Mr. Bennett: You're not going to let the Member for Little Mountain speak.

Mr. McClelland: Do you know what the Minister said in a recent issue of that famous newspaper called The Democrat, May of 1974?

Mr. Smith: What's that?

Mr. McClelland: The Minister said:

"Marketing boards have given the growers the right to run their own affairs and prosper or fail by their own decisions. The boards are made up of producers themselves, elected by their fellow producers, to regulate themselves in the marketing of their crops."

What happened to the Minister of Agriculture between May of 1974 and today? Today, in bringing in this bill, Bill 165, he obviously feels that that concept is wrong and that the marketing boards don't have the right to regulate their own industry or to regulate the marketing of their crops, but that government should take a big fist and stand over top of them and make sure that government does all the controlling and that the effectiveness of the marketing boards is reduced to nil.

What happened to the Minister between May of 1974, when he was defending his department's attitude toward marketing boards in The Democrat, and today, when he brings in this kind of a bill which ensures total centralization and control by the provincial government?

An Hon. Member: He was threatened by a subpoena.

Mr. McClelland: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker.

I think that the Minister and the Premier should answer the question I asked in the other House about the subpoenas. Were they subpoenaed to appear before the court — wherever it happens to be — in regard to the Kovachich case? Were they subpoenaed? They sure should have been.

I'd like the Minister to answer the question, too, about when the Egg Marketing Board is going to be coming into the income protection scheme. There are other people ahead of them. I wonder if maybe some kind of a little deal has been made to get them in early. I think that the Minister should answer those questions.

You know, Mr. Speaker….

Mr. L.A. Williams: Surely not.

Mr. McClelland: Well, I don't believe that that could possibly happen. I don't believe that there could be any preferences given to anyone. I don't believe that there would be any special consideration given, I don't believe that there could be any threats made, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that would never happen. But I'd just like the Minister of Agriculture to reassure us in this House that that kind of thing would never happen in British Columbia. I think we deserve that reassurance.

Reading over again that comment by the Minister in The Democrat where he says that they "have given the growers the right to run their own affairs and prosper or fail by their own decisions. The boards are made up of producers themselves, elected by their fellow producers, to regulate themselves in the marketing of their crops." It sounds a lot like what unions are asked to do in the labour market. I don't hear anybody in this House complaining about the unions. It's the same thing.

The Minister says that people often say that marketing boards have a monopoly on the market and can raise prices any way they want.

"Not so," says the Minister. "These boards have control only over products grown within the province. Hence they are subject at all times to competitive forces from outside the province." Then the Minister says:

"All in all, the record for marketing boards is a big plus. They are not perfect and could at times be more aggressive and imaginative in their selling methods. Their public relations are poor and this should not be, because they have

[ Page 4475 ]

a story to tell. For the future, marketing boards are likely to grow in number and develop new management techniques. Consumers should support them, because consumers are better off with them than without them."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to know what changed the Minister's mind between May of 1974 and today. Obviously, he is bringing in a bill which will render ineffective every marketing board in this province, and will take total control again to the government in the establishment of a huge bureaucracy which will establish again the new records that this government is going to in providing patronage positions.

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) says that farmers have excessive powers. Well, the Minister of Agriculture disagrees with him. On this occasion, I must find myself on the side of the Minister of Agriculture, because I disagree with him as well. I hope that their fight doesn't carry over too much into reflecting bad legislation such as we've seen come in in this Bill 165.

You know, the one thing that may have some redeeming features in this bill, the appeal procedure, is so sloppily draughted and such a mess that it could even result in higher food costs to the consumer. We would assume that once an appeal has been launched, then the order which is being appealed would have to be set aside — or at least be put in limbo somewhere. On many occasions, that order may have to do with lower food prices which a producer, or someone else who feels he is either aggrieved or dissatisfied, may appeal.

If the marketing board, in attempting to take advantage of a fluctuating market, lowers the price — the price is appealed or the order is appealed — then that order is left in some kind of limbo for, certainly, seven days, and maybe up to 30 days, because the board doesn't have to hear the appeal for 30 days. At that time, it can even suspend the decision indefinitely. So what happens to that kind of an order that may lower the food prices for a particular period of time in order to take advantage of a market? It will be put in limbo and, once again, the consumer gets the shaft. So, despite the comments by the Minister in the issue of The Democrat which I have quoted, the Minister brings in a bill that takes away those very rights that he was talking about — the rights of the producers to run their own affairs and to regulate their own market.

I sometimes wonder, despite the comments made by this government on so many other occasions about wanting to help the farmer and improve food production and make living better for the farmer, I really wonder if this government is really concerned about improving farming in British Columbia. I rather doubt it. We sure won't do it by crushing the farmer under the heavy hand of bureaucracy.

You know, it might come as a great shock to some of the fat cats in the Point Grey area, but farmers have a right to make a living the same as everybody else — the same as lawyers…

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Hit him, Garde.

Mr. McClelland: …the same as brain researchers, the same as radio announcers, the same as politicians. They have a right to make a living.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, to the Highways Minister (Hon. Mr. Lea) for that reference to radio announcers.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the small businessman-farmer — and that's what he is — has to turn a legitimate profit or he can't continue to produce; it's as simple as that. We don't expect the guy who's selling clothes on the main street in any town in British Columbia to operate without a profit. We don't expect the supermarkets to operate without a profit. We don't expect the lawyers to operate without a big profit. Yet we stand here and expect the farmer to subsidize the consumer in this province by low food prices.

It's bad enough to be a small farmer in British Columbia today without government activity making it about impossible. Young people today are not entering into farming activities. The farm labour force is declining rapidly and alarmingly.

Mr. Lewis: That's because quotas cost too much.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, a dairy farmer a month is packing it up in the Fraser Valley. That's an alarming statistic, a dairy farmer every month packing it up and getting out of farming. A farmer a day in Canada is packing it up. A farmer every day on the national average. I think it's time that somebody talked a little bit about the small farmer, because we've been laying too much flak on him in my opinion. The farmer who hopes, if he's lucky to get two or three per cent on his investment, often doesn't even get that, let alone the $2.50 an hour minimum wage for his efforts. Instead, he often loses money and has to go to the bank to get bailed out so he can start all over again.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Money he has to bury, that's right. A couple of $100,000 capital investment is very small on a farm today. A couple of $100,000 is nothing. And all the while, Mr. Speaker, his costs are

[ Page 4476 ]

going up and up and up and up. Every time that the consumer hits the check-out counter in the supermarket, the farmer gets blamed for the bill. Yet today's consumer buys everything from panty hose to frying pans in the supermarket, then adds up the bill and swears at the farmer. Swears at the farmer and is amazed at the high cost of his so-called food bill.

In the U.S. last year, Mr. Speaker, new car sales set a record. Some 60 million TV sets were sold, 250,000 pleasure boats were manufactured. Cars cost more, boats cost more, booze cost more. Well, of course food is going to cost more as well. Of course it is.

I ask again, Mr. Speaker, looking at Bill 165, if this government really wants to encourage food production in British Columbia and I don't see very much evidence that this is the case. In one of the most important food growing areas of the Province of British Columbia, the Nicomekl-Serpentine area of Cloverdale and Surrey, this government has turned its back on the farmers. Turned its back on the farmers. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has thrown a roadblock in the way of any plans for flood control in that area because the project, in the Minister's words, "doesn't meet the criteria of economic feasibility."

Yet that decision was based on a phony and irrelevant cost benefit study done in conjunction with the federal and provincial government, that didn't accept any evidence from consumers, not a bit of evidence from consumers, no input of potential from farmers and no input from the Department of Agriculture.

The decision would be a difficult one to understand if the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources hadn't telegraphed his punch a year ago or so when he hinted that it would cost too much to provide flood control in this important food area of British Columbia and maybe the area should be turned over to the ducks.

Well that's exactly what's going to happen, Mr. Speaker. That area will be turned over to the ducks and will be under sea water and ruined for agriculture forever, if this government doesn't act.

We're talking, Mr. Speaker, about an important area of food production, the salad bowl of Canada, the only area in Western Canada that can support the kind of agricultural production that's being enjoyed there now. Over 10,000 acres of farmland — farmland, Mr. Speaker, that can supply all of western Canada with fresh vegetables all through the growing season. But because this government won't act, and is intent instead upon developing these administrative, bureaucratic, superboards, the land is subject to severe flooding, not because of rain, but because of the build-up in other areas around that area. This flooding comes too often at the peak of the growing season and impairs the reputation of the growers in that area as stable producers, because their interruptions come at times when the supermarkets want their product more. If those people can't continue to supply in their growing season fresh vegetables to the people of British Columbia, once again it's going to be the consumer that feels the pinch in the long run, because that area, during the growing season, supplies the lower mainland of British Columbia with 90 per cent of its fresh vegetables, 90 per cent, during its own growing season.

Mr. Speaker, the minute that that growing season is over and the vegetables start coming in from other areas outside of British Columbia, then the price to the consumer goes up, not a little bit, but dramatically. Here we see again another move by this government not only to destroy a segment of the agricultural community, but, Mr. Speaker, also to force prices up for agricultural products at the retail level.

Mr. Speaker, the local production of agriculture does have a most significant impact on the retail price of food. That's what we're talking about.

I've said that I don't believe that this government is really serious in its comments that it does want to protect the agricultural industry in British Columbia. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what might be the ultimate result of a bill such as this one, Bill 165.

Well as sure as anything, under the provisions of this Act, the pricing structure for all foodstuffs can be controlled by the government. All foodstuffs! They can control foodstuffs imported into the province. Seventy-six per cent of all processed foods consumed in British Columbia are now imported.

What are the producers going to think of this bill, and those people who depend on British Columbia for a market? I think they'll join the prospectors and the apartment builders and the investors in wanting to head for the exits just as quickly as they can.

You know, we see a forest policy which was calculated to bring independent operators to their knees and ultimately into the ownership hands of government. Here I think in this bill, we're finding the same thing, because this bill will never affect the large producers. It's going to hurt the small farmer, the little independent, the guy that can't afford to be given the kind of ultimatum that this bill allows the government to give him. He's going to go under, Mr. Speaker, and he's going to be taken over by the big producer. In fact, this bill puts the government in bed with the majors.

I would suggest that maybe this bill is part of a plan by the government to take over the food industry. Certainly there's been much comment made about that by Members of the caucus of the NDP government. Many of them have said that they don't believe that the retailing of food should be in private hands, that it should be in the hands of the government. I think many of them will support that

[ Page 4477 ]

on that side of the House even today.

The Land Commission has given the government control over farmland. This bill now gives the government total, complete, absolute control over the marketplace. The government, which will end up being the third party, Mr. Speaker, under this Act, will mediate between producers and consumers and also be involved in industry. We're back again to the same kind of situation that we have in the forest industry and that this government is going to find itself in in so many other segments of society, in that it not only regulates the industry, it mediates it, it controls it and it's part of it. It's in a continual conflict of interests situation.

I'd like to know from the Minister, if he'd be willing to table all of the requests that he had from consumers and producers for this bill. Who asked for it, Mr. Speaker? I don't believe that anybody did. Certainly, I haven't heard any indication from any consumers who said they wanted a big super bureaucracy set up. Certainly I haven't heard from any producers who said they want to have the thumb of government over their heads at all time. So if the consumers didn't want it, and the producers didn't want it, who wanted it, Mr. Speaker?

An Hon. Member: Frank Howard.

Mr. McClelland: Well yes, there'd be a lot of NDPers like Frank Howard who might have wanted this bill because it's another few jobs that open up, at least probably eight, and it can go up to 10. So yes, many of the people who are looking for jobs with this government wanted the bill. Certainly the producers didn't want it and certainly the consumer didn't want it either.

The thrust, Mr. Speaker, of this bill is to give the government total power over every aspect of the food industry, every aspect. I'd like to ask the question of you, Mr. Speaker, when this government has shown its ability to keep politics separate from its responsibilities, and the answer to that is never. In everything this government has done, and certainly in many of the moves that it's made in relation to the agriculture industry in British Columbia, politics have been paramount over government responsibility.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the mention earlier of the egg producer situation in the Prince George area is a perfect example of that kind of political unput being more important than government responsibility.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could speak for just a moment about the ultimate cost of this bill, and it's going to be very, very expensive. There isn't any doubt about that. The government can appoint 10 members to this board. I talked earlier about the salaries they might command, but suppose we assume something like $30,000 a year for each board member on an average. That's $300,000 right there.

Then, of course, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can appoint all the officers it wants and clerks and employees or whatever else that is necessary to carry out the provisions of this bill, and fix their salaries as well. If we can relate that to another government operation, ICBC, which has 1,350 employees, we can maybe assume, on a very conservative basis of 10 per cent of the number of employees for this group, a staff of maybe 135 people at an average salary of something like $12,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, there's another $1,620,000 per year in salaries.

Then, of course, the provincial board may purchase and otherwise acquire, hold and dispose of real property. If we look at those 135 staff plus the 10 board members, that's 145 people we've got so far. If we relate it again to ICBC, which has a budget of $40 million in capital expenditure for the first year, and we take that expenditure of just about $29,000 per employee…. If we take that conservative estimate again, Mr. Speaker, of the new bureaucracy being about 10 per cent of ICBC, $29,000 times 145 employees works out to a nice round $4,205,000. The interest rate of 10.5 per cent on those capital expenditures has a value of something like $441,000 in round figures.

Then there is advertising. I don't know what we pay for advertising, but I notice that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) just went out on the market — he's replacing Mr. Dunsky now, I guess — and bought a period of hockey on CKNW Radio for $70,000 — right? And then he went out and bought a period of hockey on CJJC Radio for $30,000. That one's right, eh?

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: I got that one right, yes.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Yes, I live there. That's right, Then I hear that the Provincial Secretary is going out next week to buy the CTV Wednesday Night Movie and, you know, some 30-second spots on Maude, and who knows what else?

Mr. Speaker: Will the Hon. Member please bring it back to the bill?

Mr. McClelland: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking about advertising for Bill 165.

Mr. Speaker: I don't think the Provincial Secretary has anything to do with the bill when it comes to advertising.

[ Page 4478 ]

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary has taken over from Manny Dunsky, and he's taken over the responsibility for advertising for this government. I'm sorry they didn't let you in on that, because it's an important change now. We have our propaganda going in the most interesting places from this government, at high cost to the consumer.

So I would just throw in a figure of maybe $100,000 a year. That's a nice round figure for advertising for the new superboard.

So start-up costs, $400,000 — that's a pretty conservative figure too, I would think, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Watch the use of that word "conservative."

Mr. McClelland: I would say that just in using plain ballpark figures about the kind of cost this superboard is going to impose on the people of British Columbia, we're talking capital costs of $4.6 million, operating and salaries of $2.5 million, another $100,000 for advertising. We're talking somewhere well over $7 million a year for a totally useless board that doesn't do anything for the consumer, that doesn't do anything to add any extra dollars in the farmers' pockets, that doesn't do anything to shave some costs off at the supermarket. It's a bill that only provides for another bureaucracy by this government, which believes that the only way to go is more government, more government jobs, big stick, keep the pressure on, and don't let anybody have any control over their own affairs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a thoroughly bad bill, and I'll be extremely happy to oppose it. Thank you.

Mr. Lewis: During the Member for Langley's speech he attacked me viciously on several occasions. I would just like to take this opportunity to thank him, on behalf of Wall and Redekop, and Panco Poultry.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we're delighted to hear that the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) speaks for Wall and Redekop and Panco Poultry and the other big processors.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Is that the royal "we"?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I understood him to say that he was speaking on their behalf.

Nevertheless, I would like to say a few words about this bill, Mr. Speaker, about the proposal to impose an overall superboard over all the present producer boards we have in the Province of British Columbia.

It is perfectly clear from the debate we have had so far that the real problem area lies in the fact that all these boards are not really marketing boards in a pure sense, but producers' boards designed to protect and in some cases to improve the income of the producers who happen to be members.

The bill, however, in my view, simply misses the real problem area. On the one hand we have the arguments of those who oppose marketing boards and everything similar on the grounds that they control production, reduce production and tend to try and increase prices, and therefore farm income, by that method. Some, on the other hand — and the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) is one — favour them for their stabilizing effect. He spent some time referring to beef production and the beef production on property that he's associated with in his constituency.

But, Mr. Speaker, the problem with the bill that we have, Bill 165, is that it simply does not face up to what the real problem of the producers happens to be, which is the problem of income. It's not really a price question. The farmers of British Columbia would, I think, be very happy to lower their prices as far as they could if they could thereby ensure that they got an adequate income. It is income they are concerned about, not necessarily price. Most of the discussion tonight has, I'm afraid, tended to confuse the two things.

I and many others in this chamber, those Members who sit on the committee on justice and labour, toured the province during the past three weeks looking at the question of agricultural labour. Wherever we went we were met with much the same line of argument from the farmers concerned: they would be happy to pay much higher wages for those who work for them provided, of course, they, in their turn, got more in the way of return and it was possible for them not to go broke by paying the industrial wages which the rest of society enjoys outside of the agricultural sector.

The arguments, I think, are to be taken very seriously. Certainly it occurred everywhere in the province that we visited. The consistent theme was that what they needed was higher income; higher income would provide the opportunity of paying more for their goods that they purchased as well as paying more for the labour that they hired.

The problem with the bill that we have tonight is that it really does not face up to that problem of income. We're adding, and I think it is properly correctly termed, a superboard, a board with extra power, a board which can vary any other marketing board's or any other producers' board's decision, a board which has the peculiar appeal provision up to the cabinet and back down to the very same board that made the decision in the first instance. It's a bill which provides the awesome and very sweeping powers of arrest, seizure, entry, which are contained in it to enforce marketing board decisions or, indeed, to assist marketing board inspectors.

But the real question we are facing is this question

[ Page 4479 ]

of the income to the farmer. Every attempt that we have seen, Mr. Speaker, or every debate we have had on the question of these producers' boards has dealt with a quota system, has dealt with the board restricting the right to enter a particular industry, has dealt with the board issuing permits for production of certain commodity products.

The net result in every instance has been the increase in value of that particular permit. The permit in itself becomes currency within that particular industry. They become worth money, and any effort to increase the producers' income by way of restricting production turns out to be a system where any potential benefit to the producer is taken up by the capitalized value of that permit.

Therefore, you're right back to where you started again. You're right back because of the people's desire to purchase these quotas because they actually represent value that you find you're simply issuing — not a licence to print money but almost money in itself. You're issuing some sort of bond certificate at the beginning of every such programme which in turn leads to this trading taking place, which in turn leads to the capitalization of the quota, and in turn leads to no improvement in farm income. That happens to be the real problem area.

A second point, which I think might be worthy of a certain amount more comment, is the tremendous power involved in giving out such quotas and in handing over such powers to a board. The boards fix price; they limit production and restrict entry, and they do all those things which under normal circumstances would be opposed rather vigorously by the anti-combines legislation and the consumer interest which is represented by the anti-combines legislation.

We have had evidence put forward in this chamber by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) with respect to milk prices. The fact is that the quotas are worth money. This capitalization of these quotas leads to the fact that income itself does not rise directly and the consumer pays out of his own pocket for the increase in capitalized value.

I would just give this example of milk in B.C. just for the record, Mr. Speaker, again. For a B.C. family which consumes three quarts of milk a day this added cost — the result of the permit system, the result of the quota system, the result of capitalized value of that quota — amounts to $21.68 per family which took three quarts a day in 1973. Now, in Saskatchewan, as my honourable friend from North Vancouver mentioned, a family would only pay an extra 50 cents per year instead of $21.68, as in B.C.

The poultry industry was one that was discussed at some length earlier this year in the Legislature. I find, Mr. Speaker, if I may make a few comments on this, that the timing of this legislation is extremely curious. We were told during debates earlier in the year, back when we were discussing other subjects in this Legislature, that the Garrish report, dealing with that industry and with changes in the marketing board in that industry, should be discussed, it was said, by the Minister of Agriculture, among others. I think he said it on page 558.

The Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was talking about marketing boards at that time. He said:

"The question of supervising marketing boards — I think more and more there is some justification for something along those lines. Not necessarily that I believe that the marketing boards perhaps always require that supervision, but I think it's time we convinced the community as a whole that the marketing boards can stand that kind of supervision and that kind of examination, and give us an opportunity to prove to the community as a whole that the marketing boards are doing a job, not just for the members of their own organization, but for the community as a whole."

Well, that statement was made then. We expected at that time, because there had been some discussion of the Garrish report, to have an opportunity during those months and, of course, now as well, to discuss that particular industry and to discuss that particular report. Many of us were heartened, Mr. Speaker, when on April 23, I believe, a motion was put on the order paper — Motion 26 — the Hon. D.D. Stupich to move:

"That the House authorize a Select Standing Committee on Agriculture upon prorogation of the House, to investigate the operations, management policies and activities of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board, the B.C. Turkey Marketing Board and the schemes under which they operate."

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, certainly. The Hon. House Leader has suggested that in view of the hour that I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, just before I move on to the regular closing procedure, I'd like to bring to the attention of the House that it is the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and his wife's fortieth wedding anniversary today.

Interjections.

[ Page 4480 ]

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10.58 p.m.