[ Page 4481 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Privilege Statement of Hon. Mr. Strachan. Mr. Phillips — 4481

Mr. Speaker — 4481

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Provincial Elections Act (Bill 172). Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 4482

Oral Questions

New business resulting from Japan trade trip. Mr. Bennett — 4482

Public release of steel mill feasibility study. Mr. Gibson — 4482

Increase of RCMP in British Columbia. Mr. Wallace — 4483

Negotiations with egg producers for inclusion in income assistance plan. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4483

Potential voters list legislation. Mr. Morrison — 4484

Harrison Department of Labour conference. Mr. Chabot — 4484

Hiring of attendants for the House. Ms. Brown — 4485

Payment of insurance claims. Mr. Gardom — 4485

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

Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4485

Point of order Possibility of comments being sub judice. Hon, Mr. Lauk — 4485

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4485

Mr. Speaker — 4486

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4486

Mr. Speaker — 4486

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4486

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 4487

Mr. Speaker — 4487

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4487

Mr. Speaker — 4489

Mr. Gardom — 4489

Mr. Speaker — 4490

Mr. McGeer — 4491

Mr. Speaker — 4491

Mr. Gibson — 4492

Mr. Speaker — 4492

Mr. Gardom — 4493

Mr. Speaker — 4493

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4493

Mr. Speaker — 4494

Routine proceedings

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

Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4494

Mr. Fraser — 4497

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 4501

Mr. Curtis — 4502

Mr. Chabot — 4503

Mr. Phillips — 4509

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4514

Division on second reading — 4516

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. D.T. Kelly (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I've been asked by the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) to introduce three young people from his riding today. They are Sandra Sherwood from Salmon Arm, Patty Keel from Armstrong and Stephen Williamson from Armstrong. These young people have won a contest in education in democracy, which was sponsored by the Council of B.C. Forest Industries, along with other young people in the province. I would ask the House to welcome these young people.

Mr. H.D. Dent (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would add to that list four names from my constituency: Mr. Ernest Webber from Terrace, Miss Marla Woods from Terrace, Mr. Ralph Buchal from Kitimat and Miss Donna Hrynkiw from Kitimat. I'd ask the House to join in welcoming these students.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today watching us for the first hour or so are 17 students from Gulf Islands Secondary School, Ganges, Saltspring Island, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ted Harrison. I think you'll recognize, Mr. Speaker, that Gulf Island students, in spite of the relatively close proximity to the capital city, don't get the opportunity to attend here too often. So would the House welcome them?

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we will have in the gallery later today 50 students from the Earl Merriot School in White Rock, along with their teacher, Doug Oram.

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister Of Mines And Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add two names to that list of students who took that competition with CFI: Judy Wilson and Susanne Polivka from Kimberley.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, since we're adding to the list, I'd like to add Mr. Nygren, a student from Golden, to that list.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister Of Public Works): Certainly the Nicola Valley shouldn't be outdone, and I'd like to add the name of Mr. Lange — Bernie Lange.

Ms. K. Sanford (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome that whole group that's here. I had the privilege last night of having dinner with this group, and I would like to compliment them on the interest they have shown in this trip and in what they're going to see here this afternoon. Thank you.

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave of the House to table a report of Dr. J.G. Cragg to the Rentalsman, and the accompanying survey of Clarkson Gordon, which is referred to in the Cragg report. I'd like to table both documents.

Leave granted.

An Hon. Member: Open government.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: That's right, sunshine and openness — and anybody that wants to buy this report is free to do it.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I'd like to raise a question of privilege.

Yesterday afternoon the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) did enter into a tirade of character assassination against the Member for South Peace River when he stated outside of the chamber of this Legislature that…. The Minister claimed that all accusations against ICBC have either been erroneous, misleading or completely false.

That's character assassination of the highest order, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to challenge the Minister to produce the figures from ICBC to prove that I am wrong in the figures that I have related to the House and, if not, I would like the Minister to apologize.

I'll say further, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister produces figures from ICBC to prove me wrong, then I will certainly apologize. But, in the meantime, I think that the Minister of Transport and Communications' direct attack on the Member for South Peace River is a tremendous attack on my character. I think that this sort of thing should cease forthwith and forevermore.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member, before making editorial comment on it, let me see the matter he objects to? I think perhaps I can study it and then report to the House as soon as I've had a chance.

Mr. Phillips: I hope that you will certainly give it….

Mr. Speaker: I take it that you're taking it as a personal attack on you. Are you mentioned as being the one attacked?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. As I stated, it's a tirade of character assassination by a Minister of the Crown against a person who was

[ Page 4482 ]

merely trying to protect the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think that if it's a proper case, it will be for the House to decide what it was.

Introduction of bills

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS ACT

On a motion by Mr. McGeer, Bill 172 An Act to Amend the Provincial Elections Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions

NEW BUSINESS RESULTING
FROM JAPAN TRADE TRIP

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader Of The Opposition): To the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Commerce, responsible for creating jobs in this province: I read where B.C. is the only province to increase in unemployment while the rest of Canada seems to be meeting the problems of unemployment. Last spring this Legislature was adjourned because of an urgent trip to Japan — seeking industry to create jobs. Could the Minister advise how many industries have been created in this province because of that urgent trip, and how many jobs have been created?

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister Of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take the bulk of the question as notice, but I have a suspicion that as many jobs were obtained — or many more jobs were obtained — for British Columbians as a result of that trip than the trip that your daddy took to Europe some years ago when he was Premier of the province.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, am I to take it that no jobs and no industries came because of an urgent trip…? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, am I to take it, because the Minister does not have an answer, that there have been no jobs and no industries come to B.C. because…? A supplemental question. I see where because of the success of the trip, we're having another trade trip to China. I'd like the Minister to advise me how many of his department will be accompanying him on this trip to China — this trade trip.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: There's been no specific announcement, I think, or a complete list as to who the Premier will be taking. I will not be going to China with the Premier and, as far as I'm aware, no person from my department. But my department officials and myself are advising the Premier on a daily basis of the economy in Asia and the economy in North America, and he'll be fully briefed. The trip will have a great advantage to British Columbia — if not in the immediate future, then in the long range.

Mr. Bennett: Well, just a supplemental. If the trade department and you are advising on this trip — and the fact that you're not going may have some bearing because of the results of the Japan trip — can you advise what expertise is going from any department to develop jobs in this province?

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister Of Highways): Waldo Skillings.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: That question should be directed to the Hon. Premier, Mr. Speaker.

I might say that the Member is constantly referring to the first question and answer of the day. I have taken the bulk of that as notice and I'll provide you with what information I can. I haven't got all the details as to what can directly be related to our trip to Japan last April, so don't keep on referring to my answer that hasn't been given yet.

Mr. Bennett: I asked, what expertise is going from the government on the trip to China.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think the Hon. Minister indicated that he was taking some of this as notice.

Mr. Bennett: Well, then, can I redirect the question to the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) because I understand that the trip has something to do with creating jobs in the forest industry and that it's going to be marketing our timber? How many people from the Lands and Forests department will be accompanying that Minister to China?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the question is irregular. You must relate it to the administrative responsibilities of the person concerned. In this case it has been directed by the Minister who was first questioned to the Premier, who would be the one going to China, as I understand it.

PUBLIC RELEASE OF
STEEL MILL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): To the Minister of Economic Development. Order-in-council 3311 of October 17, I think, was one of the matters arising out of that trip: an

[ Page 4483 ]

agreement with the NKK company to conduct a steel mill feasibility study.

Now, I want to know from the Minister — if the sunshine demonstrated by the Attorney-General is catching — if the Minister will undertake to make that report public when it's received?

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Feasibility report?

Mr. Gibson: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Oh!

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, the timing of the feasibility study is within a period of about a year. It will cover a great deal of material. I'd prefer to make a judgment together with cabinet colleagues at the time when the information is tabled with the cabinet.

Mr. Gibson: Public information.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: There may be information there of a confidential nature that we have to keep confidential to protect private industry as well as others. I'm sure the Hon. Member who asked the question appreciates that motivation as being good order and good movement. (Laughter.)

INCREASE OF RCMP
IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Could I ask the Attorney-General in the light of severe concern, particularly in the Fraser Valley, about the breakdown of law and order, and recent statistics which show that B.C. Is the most under policed province in Canada — Vancouver has 19 officers per 1,000 reported Criminal Code offences — have any negotiations been taking place with Ottawa in response to the comment of police commission chairman Hogarth that we require 300 more RCMP officers?

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: The answer is yes. The last conference was face-to-face with the Hon. Warren Allmand in Quebec City about three weeks ago — I'm not sure of the exact time — when we presented verbally what we had presented in writing. We are now in the course of renegotiating with Ottawa as of April 1, 1976, the RCMP contracts.

There's a suggestion from Ottawa that they should cut back on the financial formula at about 10 percentage points in the three levels. This is a most unfortunate trend on the part of the federal government and we are actively not accepting that position. We are bargaining for better police support from the federal government in terms of these people who are at the front end.

Mr. Wallace: Could I ask the Attorney-General, then: have we specifically asked for 300? If so, what will those 300 cost to the province?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, no, I can't say that we've asked for 300 particularly. If you want me to take that as notice in terms of a detailed request, I'll be glad to look it up.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH EGG PRODUCERS
FOR INCLUSION IN INCOME ASSISTANCE
PLAN

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Has the Minister of Agriculture or any member of his staff or the staff of the Department of Agriculture discussed with representatives of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board or any other egg producers' association or organization accelerating the process by which table egg producers can be included in the farm income assistance programme?

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister Of Agriculture): Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand the question. Discussed accelerating the process?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's right.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: We have discussed with a committee set up by the egg producers the possibility of them being included in the farm income assurance programme. We are discussing it with other groups as well. I'm not sure what he means by….

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, perhaps I could repeat the question. Has the Minister or any member of his staff or any member of the staff of the Department of Agriculture discussed with any of the associations involved processes whereby table egg producers can be included in the farm income assistance programme and whereby they can speed up the process whereby they become incorporated under such a programme?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not a case of speeding up or slowing down the process. First, an application comes from the representatives of a commodity group who would like to do this. Having reached that decision they then come to my department to discuss it. They prepare figures; my department prepares figures.

There have been several meetings with the egg producers over the period of about a month now since they first made their decision that they would

[ Page 4484 ]

like to discuss with my department inclusion in the income assurance plan. These discussions are still going on.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: In the light of the Minister's statement with respect to the question, was the subject of the issue of testimony by the Minister or the Premier with respect to the case between the Egg Marketing Board and Sy Kovachich raised during these discussions?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Matters that are sub judice are not to be discussed in question period either.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask you whether testimony of the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture is sub judice?

Mr. Speaker: The question of evidence that may or may not be in a case is certainly one that should not be commented on or asked about in this assembly. And there are ample authorities for that statement. I'll be glad to provide them to the Hon. Members.

POTENTIAL VOTERS LIST
LEGISLATION

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): My question is addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In view of the large number of people who have been left off the municipal voters list, is the Minister planning to bring forward legislation at this session to assist those people to vote in the forthcoming municipal election?

Hon. J.G. Lorimer (Minister Of Municipal Affairs): I intend to present to the Legislature a bill which would allow those people in rural areas and regional districts to vote, whether or not they're on the voters list, due to the fact that many have been left off basically due to the fact that very little or no enumeration took place in regional districts.

Mr. Morrison: I noticed he added the word "rural." Is there any possibility that he'll consider other areas — that is, city areas — as well where there are large errors?

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: That has been considered. But, of course, the municipalities throughout the province took door-to-door enumeration and I expect that there would be very few left off.

Mr. Morrison: Could I just add that there are large numbers in the city? There are a lot of errors and….

Mr. Speaker: That's a matter of information rather than a question.

HARRISON DEPARTMENT
OF LABOUR CONFERENCE

Mr. Chabot: To the Minister of Labour. Would the Minister state how many employees of the Department of Labour attended the recent Harrison meeting and what the object of the meeting was?

Hon. W.S. King (Minister Of Labour): I didn't conduct a headcount, Mr. Speaker, but I'd say in the neighbourhood of 250 staff members.

Mr. Chabot: In particular, can the Minister say why Harrison was picked instead of a more adjacent area to the main employment of his department, namely Vancouver or Victoria? What's the approximate cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia of this conference and its object?

Hon. Mr. King: Well, I can appreciate that the Member for Columbia River would be very familiar with the cost involved at Harrison Hot Springs….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: It's a fairly central location in terms of those people who have to come from the northern part of the province. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, the staff members of the Department of Labour do appreciate the opportunity to get together once a year and exchange ideas on providing the public with a better service. That's an opportunity which they never had under the previous administration, and the morale of the department is very, very good.

Mr. Chabot: Could you give me an estimate of the cost?

Mr. Speaker: That's the third question. One, two, three.

Mr. Chabot: No, no. It's just an unanswered supplementary: an estimate of the cost of holding this get-together to boost their morale.

Mr. Speaker: Have you any suggestions in that field?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I think the

[ Page 4485 ]

Member has been in the House long enough to know that he can find not an estimate but the precise cost under public accounts at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chabot: Two years.

HIRING OF ATTENDANTS
FOR THE HOUSE

Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is directed to you, Mr. Speaker, but I realize that I would be ruled out of order by both Beauchesne and May. So, with your kind permission, I'd like to direct it through you to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) since the funds that go to this particular question come under vote 1.

I have noticed that a number of new people have been hired as attendants in the House. I'm kind of curious that they have turned out to be male people always. I wonder if there's any particular reason why females are never hired to be attendants in this House. Maybe the Provincial Secretary, through you, or you through the Provincial Secretary, could get an answer to this for me.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): I'll take it as notice and discuss it in the chambers of the Speaker. (Laughter.)

PAYMENT OF INSURANCE CLAIMS

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Hon. Attorney-General, who has the responsibility under the provisions of the Motor-vehicle Act for the claims of the victims of hit-and-run accidents. There are no end of people in the province who have been orphaned from recovery of judgments or such claims by virtue of your government's insurance legislation. I want to ask the Attorney-General if he will give this House his absolute assurance that such judgments and such claims will be paid.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I will take the question as notice.

Mr. Gardom: Would the Hon. Attorney-General also take as notice the same category of people who are involved in accidents as the result of non-insured motorists? There could be upwards of $5 million worth of claims that have been unattended to in the province.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: In answer to the supplementary question, after I said I would take the first as notice, I would say that I'll take the second as notice also.

Orders of the day

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister Of Education): I move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 165.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING
(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT
(continued)

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, last night when I closed this debate I was beginning to get into the origin of the particular piece of legislation, namely Bill 165, and I'd like, with your indulgence, to carry on along this line.

To do so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to go back to previous debate in this Legislature earlier this year which involved both the Egg Board and the Broiler Board. At that time it was fairly clear from what was said by government Ministers that there was a need to curb or control the essentially unfettered power of marketing boards.

The Premier, in a famous statement back on page 509 of this year's Hansard, referring to events that took place in 1972, talked about the need to call people together and tell them that they were acting like children and the need there was to straighten out delinquents, I guess — "children in the marketing boards" would be essentially what he said. The Premier mentioned that. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) on page 558 of the Hansard I have here made a similar statement where he said…. This was on February 26.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Minister of Economic Development on a point of order.

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister Of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is entering into an area that is well known to be the subject matter of a case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It is my contention that although the statements were made in this House and are part of Hansard, they cannot now, because of the action being commenced in the Supreme Court, be referred to in this House until that action is disposed of by the supreme court mentioned.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised, I find it curious that a quotation from the Minister of Agriculture on February 26 of this year cannot be read again and the Members reminded of it. I find that the contention of the Hon. Minister,

[ Page 4486 ]

while no doubt held by him in good faith, is obviously erroneous, when a court case, launched by people who are not under the direction of this House, can prevent us from discussing legislation brought in by the government.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think the rule is that the legislation must relate specifically to the matters that are being adjudicated in the court. To give you an example of that, let us suppose that as a result of some court case that is pending an effort is made by a government to alter the law, and would thereby dispense with the need of the law suit or the proceedings in the court. In such a case the authorities hold that discussion that is essential to the change in the law is therefore in order and is not sub judice for that reason. But we are here discussing matters about natural product marketing, which is quite a different matter than discussing the actual allegations that are in a statement of claim related to a law suit with an egg marketer and a board. May I cite the cases so that we know where we are at on that?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, before you go that far, I think that nothing I have said so far refers to a case before the courts. I referred only to a statement of the Premier of the province in February of this year and a statement of the Minister of Agriculture in February of this year, long before that case was before the courts, long before this legislation hit the floor of this House.

Now you can certainly go in anticipation of whatever else might be said today, but for you to give a judgment on the strength of a statement made by the Minister of Economic Development would be impossible.

Mr. Speaker: Are you suggesting that the allegations in the statement of claim in the case before the court have nothing to do with the remarks that you are now giving?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I made no reference to the statement of claim.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of whether you make reference. It is a question that should be answered directly and positively. Are you relating what you are saying to the evidence that may or may not be presented to a court, but certainly may be in the pleadings in that particular case?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that what I am doing is referring and quoting specific statements of Ministers of the Crown in February of this year. Now I can be adjudged guilty, apparently, of whatever might be in my mind at some future date, if we follow the logic of the Minister of Economic Development. But as for my speech so far, which I think was so unfortunately and stupidly interrupted, we are dealing with statements made by the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier of the province.

If I could just repeat what I have said so far, the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture referred to the need for some control over marketing boards, precisely the legislation that is being brought in, apparently. I thought so, in any event. I'm quoting them along this line. If I cannot continue, obviously this legislation should be lifted from the order paper, because all I have done is tried to give the background of the legislation, and I've made no reference whatsoever, as yet, to any legal case which might or might not be before the court.

Mr. Speaker: I think the rule is that where what you are referring to may have taken place before a court case had proceeded, it does not at this stage after a court case has been commenced, permit you to use that, in effect, as a vehicle for discussing the opinions of people who were concerned in certain matters which are now before the court.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The legislation is before the House, and all I have quoted are two statements by two Ministers referring to the need for some sort of control of marketing boards.

Mr. Speaker: Well, then, if you direct your mind to that and not to the question of canvassing and re-canvassing evidence which may or may not be before a court, but certainly is involved in allegations, then that may be all right. Let's find out.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what might come up in the course of the debate, but I do know that to date all I have done in this few minutes I've had is to refer to a statement by the Premier of the Province of British Columbia where he, and I'm quoting him loosely, said that he called the people together and told them they were acting like children. There were further discussions about the fact he'd been a marriage counselor. He didn't like doing this job again and felt he shouldn't enter into this.

The second Minister I wish to quote — and I think I've got every right to quote him — is the Minister of Agriculture, who introduced this piece of legislation, who said, if I can go back to where I was interrupted, on page 558 of Hansard:

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

[ Page 4487 ]

convinced the community as a whole that the marketing boards can stand that kind of supervision and that kind of examination….

It is a statement which comes down on both sides of the fence, but indicates that at that time he had in his mind some need or some possible need in the future to have some sort of control or curb over marketing boards. How the ingenious legal mind of the Minister of Economic Development can turn that around to a law suit, which goes back into court on the 20th of this month, beats me. I don't know why he is spending so much time on it. I don't know why he interrupted my hon. friend for Vancouver–Point Grey last night. He's showing enormous sensitivity on the issue, because as yet the only Ministers I have quoted are those two, and I'm quoting them long before that law suit was launched.

If he will think back a bit himself, he will remember another statement of the Premier, which was that there will be no law suit against Sy Kovachich. Now it is taking place, but….

Hon. Mr. Lauk: I'm showing sensitivity to the rules of this House. The Member for Victoria is showing contempt for the rules of this House.

What I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the subject matter of the discussion of the Premier, as related in the remarks the Member has just made, is the subject matter of a court case which is going to be a public court case. But that is the arena which society has chosen that that should be discussed in, not here to the prejudice of that other forum.

The second point that I wish to make, if the Member will allow me a moment, is that his references to the general comments of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to marketing boards is not sub judice and I wasn't objecting to that portion.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it's well taken to say this, that the matter that deals with evidence should not really be canvassed on the basis of examining it, in effect, before the House when the matter is obviously, from the allegations and statements, going to be canvassed in a court. Therefore, you're moving into an area where I think that you are probably infringing on the duties of the court.

I quote for you, if you like, the decision of Mr. Speaker Lemieux in Beauchesne, the third edition, pages 767-791. Among other things, the Speaker said:

"The rule is that when a matter is under adjudication by a court of law, whether it affects an individual or a collectivity of individuals, whether it affects one man or a province, it cannot be brought before the House by motion or otherwise."

And "otherwise" — that includes debate.

Then it goes on in Beauchesne's rule, page 234, in the first edition:

"Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and Canada that a Member, while speaking, must not refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending."

It seems to me that you're quite in order to discuss the state of mind of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) as to any changes he may have had in his approach to legislation. In that field it certainly is not objectionable, if that's what you're doing. In that sphere I can see no objection.

But if what you're trying to do is to canvass the evidence and the allegations that have been made on various occasions before a court case started, and use the shield or defence that it's quite all right to talk about things that happened before a court case that are in Hansard, the fact that you're now discussing matters that are the subject matter of a law proceeding would bring it within this rule, as I view it.

Mr. Speaker, you may well be right if the Premier Mr. D.A. Anderson: and the Minister of Agriculture were indeed before the courts, Perhaps you may be right, and they should be. I don't know. But they're not. They're not there. We have built a legal argument, if I could use that term, on the basis of statements by a Minister, which is totally conjecture on his part.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's a disgrace. Interference.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I'm trying, simply, to give you the background of the legislation that we have before us. Now, if you are correct, and we in this House cannot discuss a bill or quote any previous record of discussions regarding marketing boards because of the possibility of affecting the outcome of a lawsuit, clearly this legislation should be lifted from the order book and taken off the floor.

The question is simple. If your ruling is correct and if the statements of the Hon. Minister are correct, there is no possible way that we can continue discussing this issue.

On the point, Mr. Speaker — which I do believe was obiter dicta — you raised about what is and what is not sub judice, you're perfectly correct in saying that when there's a motion or debate on a motion, a parliamentary question should not be on a subject which is sub judice.

I'd like to refer you to the first report of the select committee on procedure of the British House, session 62-63, page 5, paragraphs 10 and 12. It goes on to say in paragraph 12 to say:

"Your committee agrees that the existing practice of excluding bills from the sub judice

[ Page 4488 ]

rule should continue."

This is a government bill. It obviously, according to all precedents, is exempted from the sub judice rule — even had I got on to that subject, which, of course, has been assumed incorrectly.

Now this was laid down, according to this report of the British select committee, in a private ruling by Mr. Speaker in March of 1949 on the grounds that: "Legislation is action designed to alter the circumstances on which a court has to decide. It may even remove any foundation for a case in the courts."

Mr. Speaker: May I intervene to underline precisely what you've said.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we're….

Mr. Speaker: What you said is that where the bill is directly to alter the case that is before the court then the House is free to debate that on that proposition.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right.

Mr. Speaker: But that is not the proposition before this House; it's completely collateral to the purpose of this bill. I refer you to page 417 of the 18th edition of May where it says:

"…such matters" — and it's referring to matters that are awaiting adjudication – "may be referred to before such date, unless it appears to the Chair that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case."

So it's really a matter the Chair has to rest on its shoulders, as it were — the responsibility for whether the matter is sub judice. It's not a question of leaving it just to the House — the Chair has that duty. I feel that you are getting dangerously close to a question of sub judice. I would prefer if you would try to relate your remarks to the purpose of this bill in second reading rather than relate matters that may be before a court.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this is becoming curiouser and curiouser. Having referred only to two statements by two Ministers back in February, I'm now getting ruled out in anticipation of what I might say in the future.

But back to the point of order that you raised, which I think is a very good one. As you say, precisely, we are together on this. Page 416 of May, chapter 19 — Matters Pending Judicial Decision:

"Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate (except by means of a bill; see page 362)."

Well, that's precisely what we're doing in this case; we've brought a bill forward.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think you fail to see the distinction that matters that are being brought forward in a bill are ones that relate to the changing of the law that is before the court. That's what the committee meant.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of sub judice is based on the fact that the discussion might prejudice the trial; it might prejudice the rights of any individual, of any citizen. The courts are set up totally independent of both the Legislature and the executive, and that's why we have the sub judice rule.

To accept your argument, if we proceed as we have been doing and continue to discuss, for instance, the appeal provisions in Bill 165, appeal provisions whereby the Kovachich case could well be taken out of the courts on appeal and sent to cabinet, it certainly could….

Mr. Speaker: I must differ with the Hon. Member, with respect. The matter of an appeal provision in here would have nothing to do with the issues that are before the court relating to a settlement that was alleged to have taken place. You have referred to that settlement and you have made certain quotations about that settlement, so it would be useless, really, to say that you're not, in effect, drawing the case before this House, because, in effect, that's just what you're doing.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, taking the hypothetical case of a judge trying to decide on the Kovachich case, knowing that a week before the Legislature of British Columbia had taken a decision with respect to marketing boards, with respect to appeals — would he then proceed? Would this not influence his judgment? Would it not influence the judgment of the court if we make a decision immediately before?

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): It might be a claim under the old legislation.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It might well be a claim under the old legislation, but the Attorney-General once more has missed the point. The rule on sub judice is to prevent prejudice. Prejudice would occur if the House continued to deal with the bill which alters the whole basis on which that case rests.

Mr. Speaker: I don't, with respect, see that that is so. Therefore, I feel that this caveat to ask the Members to stay away from discussing parts of the case would be well-advised in all the circumstances.

[ Page 4489 ]

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I've not referred to pleadings at all in my speech. I just do not understand where you — and the Hon. Minister have gone off on a tangent on this case when the substantive part of my speech has dealt entirely with the two statements by Ministers dealing in very general terms with the need for field provisions, and the need to have some controlling hand over marketing boards.

If they plan to be cut off, as I have been, from even quoting Ministers — dealing with the genesis of this legislation — I find it very difficult to continue.

Mr. Speaker: Surely the Hon. Member must recognize that it's not within the administrative setup — what he, is discussing is not within the administrative setup of the marketing scheme or marketing board. Therefore any relationship to the proposals of change here have nothing to do with what the law was previously, but it does have a great deal to do with an alleged settlement that is referred to in pleadings.

It's up to every Member to be alert to the fact that they are discussing a matter that's before the courts, because it is a matter of court record that settlement is the subject matter of this suit between the Egg Marketing Board and the individual who is involved. He has indicated in that suit some relationship to the various matters that the Hon. Member wishes to advert to.

I'm asking him if he is intending to proceed on this line. Do you intend to proceed in a full discussion of a settlement or discussions toward a settlement between the parties that are referred to in the allegations?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, do we require a written outline of the speech which is yet to come? I don't understand about "proceed along this line. Do you intend…?” So far I've referred only to two statements — one made by the Minister of Agriculture and one by the Premier. Now what happens…?

Mr. Speaker: Both of which are involved in the court as you know, and know too well. You, indeed, have quoted the date of the case, the particulars and the documents yourself.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I'm forced to because of the unfortunate interruption….

Mr. Speaker: So the matter is not unknown to you.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Of course it isn't, nor is it unknown to anybody else in the House. But how can I possibly stick with my speech if I'm interrupted by the Minister, who constantly refers to a court case? I try to refer to the bill; he refers to the court case.

I find myself criticized by the Chair because I refer to the bill, and the genesis of the bill. Where do you want me to start? You now ask what do I intend to do in the future. Well, I intend in the future, I trust, to continue with my statement about the origins of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I don't think the Hon. Member would be actually involved in the origins of this legislation so much as he would be in the origins of a law suit. I think, frankly, that what he is doing is under one object, pursuing another object; under the statement of one object, pursuing another object. I must ask him to desist.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of order, there certainly doesn't seem to be any intention whatsoever on the part of the Hon. Member for Victoria to comment upon the liability or non-liability, or fault or non-fault, as the case may be, of parties who are before the court. He's merely wishing to reiterate and to bring to the attention of this Legislature matters that have occasioned in this Legislature. You can't suggest to me for one moment, Mr. Speaker, that matters that have occasioned in this Legislature fall under the sub judice rule and are completely closed out of debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your attention, with every respect, a couple of quotations. "Sub judice we find defined by Webster as "being before a court or a judge, under judicial consideration and not yet decided." We don't yet have before this Legislature the pleadings; we do not have before this Legislature, or before yourself, any information as to what stage the pleadings are at. Nor do we have before this Legislature any information whatsoever as to what the issues between the parties are. We don't know that.

Mr. Speaker: It's not quite the same as….

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker if I may make my point.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Mr. Gardom: Thank you. May, page 328, I believe it's the most current edition, says:

"By a resolution of the House matters awaiting or under adjudication in a criminal court or a court martial, and matters set down for trial or otherwise brought before a civil court may not be referred to in any debate or question."

[ Page 4490 ]

Well, we don't have before the House any information that this case is set down for trial. There's no indication, Mr. Speaker, with every respect, before the House that the matter in question, this law suit, deals with the statements that the Hon. Member is attempting to draw to the attention of this Legislature.

There's not a scrap of evidence before this House that this matter has been set down for trial before a civil court, or any other court for that matter.

I would humbly suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that for the sub judice concept to come into play, it can only come into play when matters are set for hearing or for adjudication.

At this point the House does not have any knowledge or evidence before it of the stage of which this alleged action is at — whether it's been withdrawn, whether it's been settled, whether it's been discontinued or what-have-you. If one would follow the argument of the Hon. Minister across the way, the mere issuance of a writ, however facetious, would totally stifle debate in the Province of British Columbia. And we don't believe that's right for one moment.

May continues and says at page 417:

"The ban" — referring to sub judice preventing debate — "further applies to matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court from the time that the case has been set down for trial" — again I emphasize those words — "or otherwise brought before the court, as for example by notice of motion for an injunction; such matters may be referred to…to" before a court case.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have here a situation of a Member attempting to bring to the attention of this Legislature some matters which it has considered before. And the mere issuance of some proceedings cannot, for goodness sake, fall into the category of there being any real or substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of this case.

That has not been suggested by you, Mr. Speaker, and if you happen to have that specific information, or the Hon. Minister does, each of you have the obvious duty to inform the House of it. But I am unaware of it, and I am sure that every other Member in the House is equally unaware of it.

I don't think that it is possible for the Hon. Minister to indicate to the House — or if it is, I do hope that he will stand as soon as I have sat down and inform us if there is any real or substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of this case, which is certainly not the intention of my friend from Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) or from myself while I am trying to make this point.

We don't have a scrap of evidence before the House of this matter being set for trial or awaiting adjudication. We have not had any evidence from the Chair or from the Hon. Minister that there is any real or any substantial danger of prejudice.

Mr. Speaker, this sub judice rule is a valid rule, make no mistake of that, but it should not be subject to invalid interpretation. It is invalid interpretation that we have received across the floor this afternoon.

Why don't we have filed in the House copies of the courts documents, if the Hon. Minister intends to rely upon them? Where are they?

Mr. Speaker, with every respect, submitted that the attitude that is taken by the Minister, perhaps inadvertently, no doubt inadvertently, is incorrect and the net effect would be to stifle debate. And that's not right.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Members that we are faced with a decision that has been made in this House long ago, and has been repeated, which made it clear that it didn't really mean that the case had to be set for trial.

Whether it's a decision of Mr. Speaker Irwin on this question in the matter of debating a statutory declaration on December 17, 1955…the matter was raised in the House, and it was clear that we have adopted a course here that I think is binding on me to exercise the greatest care in allowing debate on matters that are pending, whether or not they have been actually set for trial or not, because in this province, as you know, proceedings go on into discovery between witnesses; there is evidence submitted long in advance of trial, and various steps are taken before the trial date is announced.

Regardless of that, may I quote from the decision of Mr. Speaker Irwin to say….he quotes from another learned Speaker:

"It is not for the Speaker to microscopically sift relevant from the irrelevant evidence, but to liberally apply the sub judice rule in such a way as to prevent the mischief which that rule was intended to obviate."

It seems to me that we are going to get into that mischief very quickly if we are going to canvass matters that are clearly alleged in the pleading. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has clearly linked them to the matters that are alleged, by his own statements, in regard to meetings that were held. He hasn't related it to the bill before the House; he has related it to a matter that may involve a meeting between these parties that are before the court, and persons who are witnesses that may be called, by virtue of the fact the settlement is alleged to have taken place where the pleadings say it had taken place.

So I cannot see that the Speaker can do anything but apply that rule liberally to prevent any mischief. Whether or not the Hon. Member is intending to pursue this course much further…. That's why I asked him which way he was going on this matter, so

[ Page 4491 ]

I can see whether the curtain should come down on this particular debate so far as it relates to a settlement that alleged in pleadings.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): May I say with great respect, sir, that there is another kind of mischief which I have seen repeatedly indulged in in the House. That mischief is to misuse the interpretation of sub judice to prevent legitimate debate. This question obviously has bothered other Houses as well.

We've had raised as a point of order this afternoon the decision of the select committee on procedure in the House of Commons in Britain, which was taken subsequent to Mr. Irwin's decision, which I submit to you is grossly in error and should be disregarded at this time in favour of what quite clearly was a carefully considered course of action by the select committee on procedure of the House of Commons in Britain.

May I refer you, sir, to recommendation No. 12 of that committee. I hope that the Minister of defence, or whatever he is, over there will pay close attention to what that says.

"The committee agreed that the existing practice of excluding bills" — we're discussing a bill — "from the sub judice rule should continue."

Now Mr. Irwin's decision which you quoted this afternoon was not only prior to the deliberations of this committee, but it did not in any way refer to a bill that was before the House. The grounds quite clearly laid out in this recommendation, that legislation is action designed to alter the circumstances on which a court has to decide, and may even remove any foundation for a case in the courts. I am not….

Mr. Speaker: That is not this case. I have pointed this out several times. The court in no way would be bound by what is in this legislation before the House.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, may I proceed to read you from this bill, because we're discussing a bill which has in it…. Section 3(4) which says: "The Provincial board had general supervision over all marketing boards for commissions…."

Now, Mr. Speaker, that court case involves the Egg Marketing Board. This legislation which we're debating today would have jurisdiction over that Egg Marketing Board in the very same sense that the court now has jurisdiction over it. Indeed, the Kovachich case would have been referred to this marketing board, had it been in existence at the time this matter was originally debated in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member help me then by advising me what section of the legislation before us, as proposed, deals with retrospective action? I cannot see it — that anything would be retrospective, unless it's clearly spelled out, that would allow them to go back, as it were, into matters that occurred before the bill. Where's the section?

Mr. McGeer: Well, there are several areas, but I refer you right to this very same section: "…and shall perform such other duties and functions and exercise such authority as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe."

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he should know from his many years in the House, that any legislation that would affect existing rights or existing disputes, indeed, between parties in the courts of law would have to be clearly spelled out to take away those rights specifically. I think he knows that.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, section 24 says that Chapter 263 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960 is repealed. Again, Mr. Speaker, we don't know to what extent the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may interpret the Act that we pass in such a way as to give it retroactive effect.

Many times we, in passing legislation in this House, have said that one thing might be done by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, only to find days or even weeks later that that meaning is completely altered by the interpretation the cabinet wishes to place on it.

I for one would not maintain for a minute in front of any body that this particular in-council government would fail in every respect to give retroactive effect to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that the Hon. Member knows quite well that you cannot give retroactive effect without spelling it out in the legislation, and particularly if you're delegating it to another body which in this case would be the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is really impossible for that to be done, as I would….

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, I could go ahead and read you the pleadings in that particular case, but the Minister took offence to that last night. But it does happen to involve an agreement that he made in that hotel room to continue, as of now and into the future, to make payments to the Egg Marketing Board. So the matters that are being considered are not matters that are completely over at this time; they are matters….

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Member has

[ Page 4492 ]

confirmed in more explicit language what I was afraid would happen if this mischief would continue of debating a matter which is before a court.

Mr. McGeer: There is the mischief leaving now, and I think we can get on with the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to proceed in the debate, but leaving aside, if he wishes to speak again, any question that would involve the matters that the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has adverted to.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, could I…?

Mr. Speaker: Generally speaking, Speakers have not asked for submissions on these matters or arguments, but I like to do that so that I may get any help I can from the Members. But it is going on and on, and I really think we are going too far.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on a point of order, because the principle you have inpointed is whether or not the bill specifically bears on the particular case, and if it does, the precedents you cited make it possible and, indeed, almost obligatory to discuss that insofar as it relates to legislation.

Now, you asked for a particular section which would do that kind of thing. I would suggest to you that section 24(a) proposes that:

"Notwithstanding subsection (1)" — which was the repeal of the old legislation — "an order, rule or regulation made by a Provincial board or marketing board under that Act remains full force and effect until repealed, rescinded, or varied by a Provincial board or a marketing board under this Act."

Mr. Speaker, that is a positive proposition. Where there is a positive proposition it is equally possible within the four corners of the bill to have a negative proposition. In other words, that the orders, rules or regulations cease to have effect. That amendment could properly be moved within the subject matter of this bill. When that happens that would very obviously, it seems to me at least — and I seek your guidance on this — directly affect the case before the court.

Mr. Speaker: You can't, if I may say so, debate, really, in principle matters that are not included in the bill. You can debate the things that are in the bill, and whether you oppose or support them. But you can't very well import into the debate matters which the bill exclusively leaves out.

Mr. Gibson: But what is in the bill here, Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting is that the provisions of that Act remain in force until rescinded, so it is also possible to debate and discuss the proposition that the orders, rules, or agreements, or whatever it is, which those previous boards made are no longer in force. And that bears directly on the Kovachich case.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think the Kovachich case is one where no matter what we see in our legislation that is before us here, that we are examining, there is nothing in there which would make retroactive the actions of any board that would be created by this legislation, and you can't import it into it by a negative means.

May I just quote further from the decision of Mr. Speaker Irwin on Friday, January 20, 1956, page 10 of the Journals:

"There is nothing mysterious about the words sub judice and a matter is sub judice when that matter is pending before a tribunal having judicial powers. The reason for the rule that matters sub judice may not be referred to in debate or upon a motion is twofold. In the first place it might be inferred that a breach of this rule would be not only a grave discourtesy to the court, but also might be considered an improper usurpation of the powers of the court, or an attempt to influence the court, an attempt of the Legislature to influence that very distinct and parallel part of government, namely the judiciary. In the second place, it might prejudice that sacred right of Her Majesty's subjects to a fair trial before the proper tribunal."

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No, there again the rule is, as I have already indicated, that a bill that strikes at the heart of a proceeding in the court, in other words that would nullify a proceeding in the court, is one where you are allowed to debate it, but that is not this case. This is only collateral, and therefore it in no way affects the case before the court; it is not retroactive legislation that we are examining. Therefore it follows from that that you should not discuss matters that are in the pleadings because it might prejudice a fair trial and it would be canvassing matters that a court is presently seized with.

I would ask therefore that we continue with this debate because we have taken a lot of time on this. I think we have canvassed everything that can be canvassed. I would ask the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), please, to proceed on his address.

Mr. Gibson: (Mike not on)…case before the

[ Page 4493 ]

court. Is it simply an agreement between the Egg Board and Mr. Kovachich for the payment of certain moneys?

Mr. Speaker: Well, it goes beyond that to a question of a settlement, and the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) pointed that out in his remarks, because he has obviously read the statement of claim.

Mr. Gibson: Could you define for us, though, the boundaries?

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member for Victoria please proceed on his debate?

Mr. Gardom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to assume that as a result of these remarks of yourself this afternoon that we are to be guided to the extent that the issuance of proceedings in the Province of British Columbia usurps the opportunity to debate? Because there is nothing before this Legislature from you, Mr. Speaker, that this case is being set for trial; we don't have from you, Mr. Speaker, even copies of the pleadings. They are not before the House.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member is going back to….

Mr. Gardom: With all respect, you are speculating, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You are going back to decisions in England under May's Parliamentary Practice. As you know, we also have the decisions of previous Speakers in this House, and therefore we have to abide by them as our first course. If our rules here or decisions here are silent, then, of course, we can resort, under standing order 1, to May's Parliamentary Practice for some guidance. But I'm unfortunately in the position of not being able to speculate on this as you would like me to do because we have a clear-cut example here where the initiation is not enough. The initiation of the court proceedings can be enough to stifle any canvassing of the evidence that is before a court. It really is a matter of practicality. If the Hon. Member had some evidence to present to the House that this was a spurious proceeding, and he's charging the parties with using this as a shield to prevent debate, then certainly that should be laid before this House.

Mr. Gardom: That is certainly not what I am alleging. But the onus is on you, Mr. Speaker, to produce to the House copies of the documents.

Mr. Speaker: I don't think that is true.

Mr. Gardom: Well, if you are going to make a ruling of sub judice, we've got to know if there's been an action started.

Mr. Speaker: It's been referred to by enough Members now that I think it is pretty obvious what the allegations are.

Mr. Gardom: But, Mr. Speaker, we had the same thing happen in the spring of this year when a writ was issued with absolute nullity, and, in essence, a ruling was made by committee that we were not permitted to debate that matter in the House. This dealt with some sort of a libel suit against a radio station.

It ended up that the writ in itself was a nullity.

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: The writ in itself was a nullity when it was issued, my friend. You've probably seen it; you know that.

Mr. Speaker, are you making a ruling today that the issuance of proceedings in the Province of British Columbia prevents a person debating anything relating to that matter in this House?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I'm trying to deal with the matter of evidence that undoubtedly, if this case proceeds, will be dealt with one way or another by a court. I do not feel that any of us are competent to canvass that evidence because we don't have the witnesses here. We are not involved in a court case so far as judgments are concerned; that's for the court. We should proceed on parallel lines with the judiciary instead of crossing their path. For that reason, I ask the Hon. Member to try to avoid that course.

Mr. Gardom: But, Mr. Speaker, with every respect, you are essentially making that judgment decision. You are saying that the matters which are before the court, not knowing what they are, are preventing this Member from making his speech this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Well, if the Hon. Member wants me to take the time to make a complete perusal to the allegations and the claims and all the documents involved in the court, I could do so. But, in the meantime, I would hesitate to say, "Go ahead." I would hesitate indeed in the circumstances.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the argument that we've had for the last 40 minutes illustrates that the bill itself cannot be discussed in this Legislature, if we cannot discuss the origins of it,

[ Page 4494 ]

without in some way influencing the courts. After all, if this House makes a decision one way or another on the provisions of this bill prior to a court case, if this alters and wipes out the previous law and indicates that the people of British Columbia through their elected government wish to adopt another course, undoubtedly the court case will be influenced. There's no way we can avoid that dilemma.

The strength of your argument for the last 40 minutes has been that if you can't even discuss the origins of the bill without possibly getting involved in the court case itself, therefore there's no way we could possibly vote on the bill without getting involved in affecting the outcome of the lawsuit itself. If the judges are to discover that, whatever might be the law at the moment, but the time they issue their decision the Legislature has totally changed the law, this undoubtedly would affect a judicial decision.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Of course it would. The Attorney-General has spoken up and said, "Of course it would not," and that is ridiculous. In other words, if a vote will not affect the decision of the judge, how can discussion of the origin of the bill affect the decision of the judge? To that question, he's silent of course. If the argument of the Hon. Minister and the Attorney-General is correct, of course we can't vote on this bill. If discussion will influence a judge but a vote determining the opinions of all the Members of this House will not affect the judge, we're embarking upon….

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Member knows by now that there's no retroactive effect to the legislation that's before the House. Therefore, it couldn't possibly as I see it at the moment, have any bearing on a court case.

But by discussing the evidence of a court case, he is bringing us right into that arena, and I would prefer he didn't.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, one question? What evidence from the court case have I introduced today? I've been accused of it by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) made it very clear.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I would question that. But perhaps the best thing to do, Mr. Speaker, is to go back to square one. I will start again.

Perhaps the Hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) could either leave the room or take a tranquilizer. If he hadn't started this whole thing off, I would still be back where I started off, which is a quote from the Premier and a quote from the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker: I'll have to see how the time is so we know where we stand in time. I consider that while the referees are refereeing, there must be a timeout in this game of hockey we're playing. I would presume that we start now with your speech where you left off before the point of order.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Could I ask, Mr. Speaker, why you are limiting me in time? Under what rule of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I was not limiting you at all in your discussion of a point of order, which was not really the subject of your speech.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: With reference to your statement….

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I'm sorry. In your case, of course, under our rules, there is no time limit on your speech.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought you might make a mistake on that as well. There is no limit because there is no other designated speaker despite the erroneous interpretation of the leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Bennett).

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to start again because a great deal of time has been wasted by the Minister of Economic Development who brought in these red herrings.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Wasted by the Liberal Party of B.C.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Trying to get some debate on public issues, Mr. Attorney-General; you know that. You're trying to conceal things and you know that as well.

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Back to the origins of the legislation. On page 509 of Hansard of this year, 1974, in oral questions, in reply to a question from the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), the Premier replied:

Mr. Speaker, I did not order anyone to be given any quotas related to broilers. There is dispute in this area, as there is in the egg-producing area. I met in my office with some MLAs, the Minister and some staff, and I said: "Gentlemen, please work out some solution to this problem." Earlier, as I reported to this House, I

[ Page 4495 ]

said that the Egg Marketing Board were acting like children. I've long ago given up marital counseling, and I regret that I attempted it again recently.

That was the statement of the Premier to which I referred in more general terms earlier on.

In other words, the government back in October of 1972 apparently believed that there was some need to stop Egg Marketing Board members acting like children.

If I could again repeat the quotation from the Minister of Agriculture, page 588 of Hansard, February 26, 1974:

HON. MR. STUPICH: …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 numbers of their own organization but for the community as a whole.

So those are two quotations from two Ministers. There is another Minister I'd like to refer to, namely the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), where she — again on page 951 of Hansard, March 8 — talks about the need to have some sort of changes in the marketing boards. I won't read her whole speech or a lengthy quotation from it, but she said:

I support the concept of marketing boards, but I want to see them changed.

She goes on to elaborate on that statement.

So Minister after Minister has made it clear that they believe in the need to alter the system of marketing boards in British Columbia.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Garrish in the Garrish report indicated that there were needs for changes. This report is now many, many months old, getting on for two years old. The B.C. Food Council commissioned a report by F. Rex Werts Limited, marketing consultants, and it was entitled "The British Columbia Food Industry." That indicated a need for change, or at least the belief of the authors in the need for change. It went on:

"Thirdly, in the private sector, the interests of consumers have often not been adequately represented in the development of marketing controls. When the various marketing boards were formed, the main concern was to try to develop a programme for the individual industry which could direct or control production and establish product prices which at the same time promised a better and more stable return for the producers."

Mr. Speaker, I referred last night to the Forbes report, yet another report indicating the difficulties in the area of marketing boards and the need for changes.

The reason for all this difficulty stems from the original Kovachich case. Ignoring the subsidiary aspects of this question, which were canvassed at length this spring, such as the truthfulness or otherwise the Ministers, the Kovachich case — the discipline imposed there — was essentially the basic beginnings of this legislation that we're talking of today.

The Attorney-General in his debate on his estimates in the spring also referred to the need to go to court to get some sort of determination. But what we find at the present time, Mr. Speaker, is legislation brought in dealing with the question of appeal, dealing with the question of control, legislation based on Ministerial statements which, in my mind, have created a situation which goes far beyond the requirements of the problem.

I should perhaps refer back to the Attorney-General's statement on page 1211 of Hansard:

The Egg Marketing Board of the Province of British Columbia intended to have a court case to test their powers under the B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act.

That's the very Act we repeal, of course, with this legislation here.

It intended to have a court case as to whether their levies were legal and should be authorized and should, indeed, be enforced. And they were told, according to the affidavits, that "there will be no court case against Sy Kovachich," and they were told this by none other than the Premier of the Province of British Columbia. That was a quote from me during the Attorney-General's debate.

The quote from the Attorney-General I'd like to read….

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Now you're beginning to quote yourself, not me.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I will quote the Attorney-General where he said in request to a question about settlement in accordance with the law:

Well, I don't know. Now, if the egg board lawyer is having trouble in enforcing levies or fines in the Fraser Valley, the north, south, the east, I would presume he would seek a court test — if they chose to go that way. That's the kind of decision that should be left to the board.

Nobody has approached me. The lawyer advising the egg board hasn't approached my department and said, "Give us an opinion." I presume he doesn't need my opinion because I can't say how a court test would go in any particular situation. That's for the courts.

[ Page 4496 ]

They are free to take a court test if they want to have their powers defined and clarified, by all means.

This background, I think, is important because out of it came a motion on the order paper which effectively prohibited debate from the third week of April through, indeed, to today — namely motion 26 referring to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture the investigation of 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. This completely prevented since April until — about seven months — any discussion in this Legislature of the problems of the marketing boards. It was, of course, on the order paper. Efforts made by Members to look into this matter were, of course, rebuffed properly because the order paper prevented discussion. The order paper motion, motion 26, prevented discussion.

Now we come into the Legislature at this time; a session called to handle the difficulties of municipal taxation and which is also called, I understand, to deal with some of the landlord and tenant problems which have come to light.

We find that this piece of legislation is brought forward. We further find that, of course, as referred to earlier, a lawsuit prevents proper examination of the origins of this case and prevents proper examination of the need for such heavy government control over the marketing of natural products. The lawsuit, of course, is the Kovachich versus the egg board — or I should say the B.C. egg board versus Kovachich.

There were possibilities referred to earlier in the debate between the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), yourself and other Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, which indicated that it might be that the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) might be called in that lawsuit.

I asked questions on this earlier today during the question period and, at that time, I believe again incorrectly, was ruled out of order. At that time it was stated that this could not be even examined because of this lawsuit. Why a question to find out whether an individual might appear as a witness would be ruled out of order on the grounds that it could be prejudicial I do not know. But we do know, of course, that travel will prevent any such testimony in the future.

I asked further questions today, Mr. Speaker dealing with….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I think it's incredible that the Hon. Member would presume to usurp the role of a judge as to whether or not a witness will be called in a court case. I think that is strictly with the jurisdiction of a judge. A comment such as that is offending against the rule in a way that is clearly calculated.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty we face is this. The suppositions are raised by Ministers of the Crown. You yourself have asked for outlines of speeches to be made in the future in this House. We are trying to discuss a specific piece of legislation which is intrinsically linked with the Kovachich case because, of course, it sprung out of it.

Mr. Speaker: You are, as I understand it, Hon. Member, engaged in a discussion of whether or not a witness will appear in a court case. I don't see quite how that has to do with the principle of this bill. Therefore, when you say that you're discussing the principle of the bill, I cannot see it in what you've said now.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The discussion of the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the need to control and to supervise marketing boards. If we cannot discuss statements by Ministers of the Crown with reference to this, there seems little point in continuing discussion on the bill itself because voting on the bill itself inevitably, as I pointed out before, must lead to prejudicing the case itself.

Were this legislation to come up subsequent to this and had there been the opportunity for debate during this period when debate was barred by a motion put on the order paper for the purpose of barring debate, perhaps then we could have entered into this with adequate background. But we have essentially been prevented from any discussion of marketing board questions since April of this year due to that motion. The motion remains on the order paper and, technically, it would be impossible to bring in a bill on that subject until such a motion was lifted.

Mr. Speaker: I must differ with the Hon. Member. Bills always have precedence over any other business in this House. That is a rule of this House: no motion can stand in the way of a bill.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's precisely the point, Mr. Speaker: the motion may not prevent the bill from being introduced but it has prevented any debate from taking place on the general question.

Now we arrive at a situation where, at the present time, the antecedents and origins of the bill cannot be discussed by your own rulings because of a lawsuit.

Essentially our hands have been tied in a free-ranging discussion of this bill because of the combined effect of a motion put on with the purpose of stifling debate and now the use of the date of a lawsuit to again stifle debate on the origins of this

[ Page 4497 ]

bill.

I find it impossible to understand how this bill can proceed when we are faced with this dilemma. I find it impossible to understand, Mr. Speaker, how you can continue to let this bill proceed until after such time as the lawsuit itself is resolved. It has been raised twice in debate by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). He referred to possible deals. None of these questions has been answered; they've been ruled out. I find it at this stage, Mr. Speaker, in light of your rulings and in light of the approach taken earlier today to even prevent quotations from Hansard of this year referring to the origins of this bill being introduced in debate, simply impossible for us to discuss this bill intelligently in this House.

I obviously have no choice but to accept your ruling and sit down on this. But I find it intolerable that this Legislature should have its freedom of debate deliberately curtailed by the combined device of motion followed by lawsuit.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): I just have a few things to say about the bill before us, Bill 165, called the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Don't quote Hansard.

Mr. Fraser: Okay. I'll watch that, Mr. Attorney-General. I'm getting warned here already. I don't want to get into a wrangle for an hour and a half on a legal hassle about procedure as the Liberal leader has. I assume that you're going to let debate continue on this bill.

I want to say, first of all, that I'm not in favour of this bill because of its status as a superboard, a super marketing board, over the other 10 marketing boards we have. I can't see any necessity for that at all.

The Member for Victoria just referred to the motion on the order paper that commissioned the select standing committee to look into this. Nothing has happened. Before we got to this stage in legislation, this committee should have looked into these marketing boards and had a report back to the House on their operation.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for 10 appointments by the cabinet to comprise this superboard. Because of the track record of this government since 1972 in appointing task forces and boards and so on, probably the most objectionable thing I see about this Bill 165 is the fact that the cabinet will appoint 10 "Barrettcrats" I'll call them to be on this superboard.

I don't know where they can get 10 more. I think every NDP defeated candidate has their job, I imagine now you're going to start importing them. There are quite a few that you have to bring in from other places because, you know, the 10 bureaucrats on the superboard are only the start and we'll probably end up with 200 to 300. After they get going, they will start hiring staff, and down the road, until we've probably got a couple of hundred of them, and $8 million or $10 million worth later. Then we'll find what we found out when we traded the Rentalsman — that when he has anything to decide, he recommends that it be referred to a further commission. So, you know, this can snowball to no end, and that's certainly the reason that I oppose it.

I would say that this superboard, and this Bill 165, is different from the previous legislation inasmuch as it's called the Natural Products Marketing Act. Where the others referred to agriculture, this refers to products of the forest, the sea, the lake, or the river. Therefore, the next thing we're going to have is a chip commission from the Minister of…Woody woodpecker over there. He's not in his seat as usual. But I imagine that will be the next bill, creating a chip commission — probably before the end of this week — and the government through that commission will then buy and sell all the wood chips that are manufactured in the forest industry.

The other thing I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is: who asked for this legislation? It's my information that very few, if any producers, ask for this legislation; and I don't know of any consumer group who asked for it. So, why have we got it here at all? Is the Minister of Agriculture responding to public requests? If he is, I'd like to know where those public requests came from.

I do know about one segment that I am advised certainly didn't ask for this legislation. I refer to the beef cattle industry in the province. From my riding of Cariboo, we certainly are interested there because it's probably the largest area in British Columbia in the production and shipment of beef cattle to market. I understand from them that they didn't ask for any beef cattle commission. They were quite astounded that this is now before us, which obviously the heavy majority of NDPers will be making law within the next few days. I see the Minister is making notes and I thank him. Who asked for this no doubt we'll hear when he winds up the debate about it, but I want to emphasize that. This bill, of course, will make it so that a cattle commission can be instituted. Maybe that vehicle is just there for that purpose, but I repeat that it is my understanding the beef cattle industry didn't ask for it.

One thing I wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker — I know you can't refer to previous debates — but on Monday when the amendment to the bill was being debated, which I agreed with, I was not able to be here. But I want to acknowledge the fact publicly and thank my friend, the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings), for voting in my place, because that's actually what he did, and I appreciate that fact. He saw the light for a

[ Page 4498 ]

few minutes on that occasion.

While we can talk about marketing boards and so on, I think the crux of the thing is whether, from the consumers or the producers, whatever product we're talking about, what is this going to do to help the high costs of production or the high costs of food? I can't see that this bill, in any way, gives assistance to any group at all. As a matter of fact, with the big bureaucracy that will be created it will only again be paid by general revenue, and from all the taxpayers of this province, so I really cannot see the purpose of it.

On the beef industry itself, I'd like to say a few things, Mr. Speaker, about it. If the public are not from a beef producing area, they don't understand. All the consumers seem to be worried about is what the high price of beef is in the different stores. But there is a lot more to the story than that, and I would like to give the beef cattle producers' version of their problems and relate it to this bill. Inasmuch as that industry is in serious trouble, like so many others are, and the real facts of life are that we have an over-production of beef in the Province of British Columbia — not only in the Province of British Columbia, but in Canada, the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and the entire free world — and it appears that it's going to be a long time before this surplus disappears.

In the interval, we have cattle going to market and being sold far below production costs. You might be interested to know that the cattle industry in this province has investigated costs, and I understand that they've come up that the cost to produce a calf for market is a $1.10 pound. Of course, you know that the farmer is getting for that, on an average, about 30 cents so that's just an example of the terrific losses that are taking place in the beef cattle industry.

What really has happened is that in 1967 the Government of Canada urged all grain farmers on the Prairies to go into cattle, and they sure did. They have taken the Government of Canada's advice and now, as I stated earlier, we've got terrific overpopulation and consequently a depressed market.

The next thing….

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Well, I'm just coming to that, Mr. Minister of — I was going to say Leo the Lip, but I shouldn't say that — Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). I realize that you're happy today, Mr. Minister, because this is the first day after your 40th wedding anniversary and I want to extend to you and your wife my congratulations, and my sympathies to your wife who has been able to put up with you for 40 years.

Getting back to where I was, Mr. Speaker, in 1967 the Government of Canada, to get rid of the grain said, "Put it into cattle, and in that way you can get the price out of your grain." They have done that, and overreacted of course. Throughout the world we have this surplus situation.

I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, that I was quite amazed the other day to hear quite a senior Minister of the Crown — and I refer to the Minister of Agriculture for Canada (Hon. Mr. Whelan) — state the fact that the high cost of meat to the consumer was that the packers were to blame, and the retailers. This is absolute balderdash. I want to make that point here. Of all people, the Minister of Agriculture for Canada certainly knows better, and I don't know whether Beryl Plumptre was after him that day or not. But those are not the facts at all causing the low price to the producer for beef and the high price of beef to the consumer.

What has actually taken place in the industry is the fact the high price of feed grain — feed grains have gone up five times or four times in the last 12 months. The feedlot operator has to pay these high prices for grain, and what the feedlot operator or the buyer is doing at the cattle sales in the Cariboo, right today, is forcing down the price to the producer of the animal to make up for the increased cost of the feed grain to his operation. To save himself from going broke, the feedlot operator, in turn, is forcing the producer of the animal into almost bankruptcy. It's very serious.

We go on to the consumer, after all this gerrymandering has taken place. Of course, because of the high price of grain, the feedlot operator then sells to the packer; in turn, it ends up on the retail counters and the price has not dropped at all to the consumer, which is most unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, you will be surprised to hear this, but it is my opinion that the general public are getting pretty fed-up with we politicians, no matter what party. We talk about all these problems, and that's all we do — re-cycle them through long-winded talk. But I only point that out to show you that there is somebody in this province who is actually doing something about it, and it's taking place today.

Before I mention who it is — about the high cost of meat — I might tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no financial interest in this company whatsoever, so you won't think that I am biased or trying to boost their shares. But I refer to Woodward's stores, who are also cattle ranchers in the Interior of British Columbia. Today, throughout all their stores, they are putting 300 head of grass-fed beef on the market through their stores in the Province of British Columbia. They are doing something about it, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Right. Well, you can go out, Hon. Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), phone

[ Page 4499 ]

your wife and get her to go, because it's only a few blocks from where you live, I think.

In any case, they are actually doing something about it. While all the rest of us politicians and everybody else are just chewing up the chips, they've effectively found an answer. They are putting it on an experimental basis with 300 head of animals from the interior. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this sale will be an outstanding success, and I hope that they will continue and that other people will follow the example that Woodward's are giving, to consumers and to all of us in British Columbia, of a 20 per cent reduction.

There are prices quoted as far as different types of meat are concerned, but it actually will have the effect of reducing the price of sirloin steak from $2.49 a pound to $1.89 a pound. I imagine the public will say: "Well, we can't afford even that." But for the ones who do have to buy some kind of meat, the hamburger down to a lower level will be 75 cents a pound for hamburger compared with 99 cents. And it will be 69 cents a pound for chuck roast compared with $1.19, and 99 cents a pound for a cross rib roast compared with $1.59.

The other thing I would like to point out is the prices just recently on the live level, or the level that the people in the Interior get for the live animals, at these sales. Last year the ranchers were getting, this article says, 73 cents a pound — I think that's a little on the high side, but we will use it anyway — for live beef steers compared with 25 cents this year. I don't quite agree that that severe a drop has taken place, but it actually has dropped about in half to the live cattle producer.

Consequently, with the price of everything he needs to operate on going up in some cases over 100 per cent, like taxes which are put on by this government, and fuel costs and machinery…. They have advanced 100 per cent, as have fencing materials and so on, to say nothing of farm labour. We are now starting to get practically full unemployment in the farm labour section. So it's really serious from that standpoint.

I can't see at all where this bill is going to help the consumer public of British Columbia that this one merchandiser in B.C. has the answer for getting reduced costs in these highly inflationary times. I only hope that their competitors as well as consumers will follow this line.

The public in all of Canada, I guess, have been peddled a lot of bunk about grain-fed beef being the best beef there is. The grass-fed beef is equally as good, probably a little bit better in some cases. We should get back to these facts of life and start eating grass-fed beef, and that will help our pocketbooks and improve our health as well.

We won't have to depend on the high-priced Prairie grain to finish animals. There has been a good con job done by some promotional people over the last 20 years regarding grain-fed beef.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is an insult to all producers in this province — and the consumers as well — because in no way here does it say how it's going to help either facet of society involved.

I've been told by the farm organizations that they consider it as such, a straight insult.

There's another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to find out from the Minister of Agriculture. He says that the consumer is going to be represented here. Well, what does he mean by that? Who is going to be in the majority position of these 10 appointed people? Are the consumers going to be in the majority, the producers, or who — labour unions? I, as one, prior to voting on this would like these sorts of things answered. I know that their basic requirement is to be an NDP hack but, apart from that, what segment of the community are they coming from?

For what it is worth, Mr. Speaker, I definitely will not be voting for this bill when it comes up to the time to vote, and I'll just leave you with this last word.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: Well, they seem to be enjoying my talk, Mr. Speaker, so I should probably keep going.

I think the Minister of Agriculture made some notes, but I can't understand…. I think one thing this government has done is to create the committees that operate between the sessions, and I agree with that that they get more mileage out of them, But why did the Minister of Agriculture, speaking of committees…why did he decide to bring in this legislation without sending this to the agriculture committee, as the motion said? I can't understand it. Maybe he would have found out the facts of life from this committee, and that, of course, is what they didn't want to have it.

If we're going to have a useful committee system and if there were a shining example for it, it would be in this instance here. They could go out and find out from the producers. As I said earlier, they haven't asked for it, but we, as legislators, would have known a lot more about it if they had sent this to a committee.

I said in the Legislature last spring that in view of the Minister over there, Recreation and Conservation, (Hon. Mr. Radford) and that Minister over there, Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) — everybody likes the motherhood issue — putting in parks and playgrounds we would be finally ending up with no beef cattle industry, because there would be no Crown range left for them, which is so vital to them. We would end up by eating grizzly bear steak and porcupine pie.

[ Page 4500 ]

You know, the more I see happening in food production, the more I'm inclined to believe that this is going to come into being because of the plight the beef industry is now in due to their high costs and so on. A lot of beef producers are right now going out of business and selling their cattle at 50 per cent below the production costs, and going right out of the business.

Well, it is obvious what is going to happen in about two years time as far as the meat supply is concerned. I hope that we have eaten our way through the surplus, but then we'll go into a shortage and then the consumer is going to get hit again and away up will go the price of beef to the consumer.

You have no idea, I don't think, Mr. Speaker, nor this House, how much feed grain has advanced in the world markets. It is a world market situation that has caused it. The demand throughout the world is certainly a big change from when the Government of Canada paid them not to plant grain. I believe that was about 1967-68. Now we see a reversal of it.

I want to repeat, and I can't remind you enough, about the plight the beef producer is in.

I will just say another thing. They are presently meeting, with their severe problems, and discussing about going into the provincial assurance programme. I have reason to believe that there will be some shenanigans go on at these meetings, but I would like the Minister of Agriculture to watch very closely when that vote…. I believe that vote was taken today among the beef producers, whether they should join the plan or not. But if it is a negative vote, I think I would suggest to the Minister that he look into that and look behind that vote as to why it would end up as a negative vote, because in my opinion it is the only way the small cow/calf operation…and by small I mean up to 200 head of female animals. This is small as far as the beef cattle person is concerned. But they are doomed to die and, as I say, they are dying every day.

So if the vote is not to join the plan, I would say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Agriculture, please examine why, with this serious condition they're in, they would vote not to join. I think the Minister will get some real surprises.

The other thing is again on what is certainly bothering the beef cattle industry: the last thing they want is a bill like this with more government control. They want less government interference.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister Of Public Works): Do they want income assurance?

Mr. Fraser: Well, that's nothing to do with this bill at all.

An Hon. Member: Go pick up your rocks.

Mr. Fraser: Mr. Speaker, will you tell that Minister of…. What is he now, Public Works? You go up to Merritt.

Why don't you get up in this debate? You have lots of cattle industry in your area. But you are against everybody in your riding. I don't blame you; you're afraid to go up there. Thanks to your colleague over there on Bill 31, he's driven you right out of your riding. But I'll go there for you and give them your regards.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: I'm still waiting for you, Mr. Speaker. I challenged this Minister to a debate up in his home town of Merritt and he never answered. I'd like you to take that up.

Mr. Speaker: I would remain the Hon. Member that it's against the rules to question another Member's courage. That leads to dueling across the floor, and it's dangerous.

Mr. Fraser: Oh, I wouldn't like to see that, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad you pointed that out.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): The Minister's vision isn't too good.

Mr. Fraser: Another thing when we're dealing with the beef industry — and this is under this marketing Act to the Minister of Agriculture — the committee made a recommendation that would help the beef industry. As far as I know it isn't the Minister of Agriculture's department, but I refer to grazing tenure. Every cattleman wants grazing tenure. By grazing tenure I mean, why wait on a civil servant until June 1 every year to find out whether you're going to get a permit to turn out your herd of cattle? Why can't they have a tenure, say, of 5 or 10 years, subject certainly to abuse and that it can be cancelled.

Those are kinds of things on which the Minister of Agriculture could get after the Minister of Lands (Hon. R.A. Williams). It's his department; he issues the tenure, I know. But I think you had better lean on the Minister of Lands and wake him up.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, the Hon. Member has strayed off on some kind of a cattle trail, and I wish we could get back to the….

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Home on the range.

Mr. Fraser: Right, home on the range. But the reason that I'm on this is that it's a large industry in British Columbia and certainly in my riding, and

[ Page 4501 ]

cattle are specifically mentioned in the marketing board Act that's before us. Specifically on that, I repeat that I want to hear from the Minister about who in the cattle industry asked him to incorporate the possibility of creating cattle commissions.

Mr. Speaker, just in closing now, I want to repeat that the cattle people, particularly as far as my riding is concerned, want less government interference, not more, as this Bill 165 will certainly cause.

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): I've got to admit that I agree with the previous speaker, even though he wandered down a cattle trail, on the high cost of feed grain that's pushing up the price of beef and that we should be concentrating on grass-fed beef. However, I'd have to pose the question to him: what do we do with all the feed grain that piles up through the farmers that grow the feed grain, if the feed lots aren't going to buy it? One problem simply leads into another, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the past day and a half of debate has been interesting, but I'm afraid I can't do it. I'd like to say also that it's been an intelligent debate, but, in general, I'm afraid I can't do that either. What we are seeing here instead of a debate on the principle of Bill 165 is that it's being used as a subterfuge for a direct and definite and bitter attack on our present Minister of Agriculture.

This is brought about because, as we all know from the press in the last summer that's gone by, the leaders and Members of the opposition parties have been touring the province trying to get their ear to the ground and get a feel of the pulse, and they are finding out that every month that goes by increases this Minister's popularity with the agricultural segment of this province.

They know, just as the people in agriculture know, that there has never been as much done for agriculture in the past 25 years as in the past two under the leadership of this Minister. All this has been so far is a cover for an attack on the popularity that they know this Minister is building up and the sincerity with which the agricultural community views him.

I always thought that CN over the years stood for the Canadian National. I think, from the last day and a half, I have to change, and it now stands for Claptrap and Nonsense, because mostly that's what we've been hearing. And this is what we're still hearing in the interruptions from that corner up there.

As far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, this Bill 165….

Interjections.

Mr. G.H. Anderson: I believe that those comments are beneath answering and beneath contempt.

I think I'd have to use a term for this Bill 165, Mr. Speaker, a term of the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) — a "sunshine" bill. The marketing boards in this province have been operating over the past years in a lot of shadows, and there have been a lot of people probing in those shadows. There are a lot of consumers that are concerned about what's going on in those board rooms, and they want to know and they want a little control over them.

The board is, after all, the first opportunity that farmers have had in this province to have a trade union. For this, I certainly have to compliment the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) when he was Minister of Agriculture, since the boards were brought in under his direction in his tenure of office. This was certainly one excellent move that was made in the Department of Agriculture when he was Minister.

We've heard so many comments, Mr. Speaker, The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said that it's selfish to think of ourselves, in the speech he made; we should be thinking about the world food shortage. So did the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) when she mentioned how many people were dying every day or every week because of the shortage of food and the starvation crisis that's facing the world. But no one has come up with an idea of how to store the excess produce that will be produced in British Columbia if complete and total production is allowed on every square foot of land — which should be done.

Everyone agrees it should be done. And everyone apparently agrees that the farmer should bear the brunt of the processing and storing until it can be sold. This is something that is economically impossible for him to do. It has to be done by society at large if it's going to be done at all. The farmer is operating at the present time on a margin of from a loss to a 2 per cent return on investment. When you look at what they call a family cattle operation now with 150 to 200 head, you're looking at $150,000 to $200,000 capital investment and a lifetime of work for a return of 2 per cent on your investment.

The boards have corrected this in some ways with the products that they regulate in the 10 areas that they're concerned with. The producers do have a better deal. I'm happy to see that the Minister has said there will be some consumers on this board that will be formed under this bill, the provincial board.

But let us not confuse the issue when we start talking about producers and consumers. Producer marketing boards were never set up for the benefit of the consumer. I don't care who makes the statement; I will disagree with them. They are set up for the protection of the producer, The producers in the past would produce a product and sell it on the market in a year that the price was good. The next year everyone went into

[ Page 4502 ]

raising the product, flooded the market and half of them went broke in the effort of trying to compete. So the boards were a stabilizing effect.

This was the first attempt in this province at stabilizing income and production to consumption and, by and large, that has been fairly successful.

But like any Act that's been brought in in 1960 and hasn't been amended to any great amount since then, there are some problems that have been creeping into its administration. And like any other Act, it requires an amendment now and then to make it work better for the benefit of all.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I listened with interest to the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) when he was discussing it in his speech. It turned out he was talking about boards. He was saying that what usually happens is that they become inept, bureaucratic, a monopoly, and they don't care. I thought he was talking about the directors of the bar association until he went a little further in his speech, because they've had a pretty good marketing board for the law profession in this province, and I don't think it's been particularly to the benefit of the consumer. It just isn't fair, in my view, that we as elected people should be totally at the….

We heard references also to Moscow marketing. That's a good term: "Moscow marketing." We have had this type of Moscow marketing since 1960 under the present Act.

The First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) said that the world's economics are teetering on chaos. He said the world is facing starvation. I don't think that anyone in this House would disagree with him. Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm a member of a democratic socialist party is because of the monopolistic capitalist situation that has brought the world to that situation that the First Member for Victoria referred to today.

Mr. Phillips: Why can't China feed herself?

Mr. G.H. Anderson: Farmers have been trying for 100 years in this country to improve their lot.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order, please!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: We hear that "quack, quack, quack" from that Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) continually in here on agricultural matters. There's no better one to represent the farmers in South Peace River, of course, than a used-car dealer. Nevertheless, the Peace River has been in agricultural difficulties for the last 20 years, and none of the social Credit Members from that area have done very much to assist them.

There was one — there was one who tried. He couldn't stand it any longer and crossed the floor.

For a 100 years the farmers of this country have been trying to improve their lot, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that — every group in society does. They started by the attempt to form co-ops on the Prairies, the grain farmers did. The co-ops were a help but not the total solution.

They tried to form a farmer-labour party a long time ago, and finally succeeded not so very long ago. I think most Members will remember the time when the farmers party was the governing party in the Province of Alberta.

I think you'll remember the time too when things were rough and they asked for a little assistance from Ottawa, and Mackenzie King said: "Not one plugged nickel for that farmers' government out in Alberta," and his party went down to defeat. Ever after that, Mackenzie King very carefully walked the centre of the line, followed by the Liberal Party to this day: never stick your neck out; never get in a position where you might make a mistake.

We still have the attempts by the farmers in the National Farmers Union to organize, be certified as a trade union and to receive bargaining rights like any other working group in the province. They're not meeting too much success for various reasons which I won't bother going into here.

But the boards, by and large, in this province have done a good job under the legislation under which they were operating. Several bad points have crept into it, into their marketing, into their practices, into their allocation of quotas. It is my opinion, as I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that this is the sunshine bill that is going to cast light on these boards, that's going to cast a little more light for the consumer to see what's going on in the boards, and the reason why he has to pay the cost he does. Hopefully it will let a little more sunshine into his life with a renewed understanding.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): Mr. Speaker, I just want to take my part in this debate on Bill 165, the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, after we had quite a procedural wrangle earlier in the day.

It seems to me that the task which faces Members of this House, in analyzing the Natural Products Marketing Act, is to ask here of the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, a few pertinent questions which are being asked in the producing community in British Columbia. This I've attempted to do on the Saanich peninsula since the bill was introduced on Friday last, and because of the nature of the peninsula, with particular attention to egg producers and dairymen.

The Minister will not be surprised to learn, I think,

[ Page 4503 ]

that the response to his bill and his statements accompanying the bill, is one of general skepticism among the producers. Skepticism and the opinion that as far as they can see — and most of you will bear in mind that these producers in this part of the province are small family-farm units — as far as they can see, the introduction of a superboard, layered over existing marketing boards, whether they function effectively or not, is going to be of little use to anyone, including the producers and the consumers, about whom we've heard a great deal during the debate, the amendment to hoist the bill for six months, and so on.

It is evident, however, that it is going to ensure more high-paying government-appointed jobs. That is the only benefit which is apparent to the individuals with whom I have spoken on this particular subject. The bill is far too vague, I think, and they think, in terms of who is going to sit on this board.

Who are the people who are going to be named to the provincial board? Will the producers to recognized? We had some response to the effect that, yes, they will be appointed, but it's not in the legislation. They may be appointed, the Minister said. Will the various appointees be conversant with the individual commodity groups which are being covered by the legislation? Will they be conversant with these two important points: the objectives of the farmer; and then of the farm industry itself?

What is regrettable about this is that — and there has been lengthy debate, I recognize — but it seems that whenever this government is in doubt about a particular problem, whenever it wants to case something which has been identified for us as a problem, it moves to solve it with the creation of yet another agency — a superboard, another major commission. This will be coming up in debate on other matters over the next few days.

We have heard, Mr. Speaker, considerable comment on the subject of consumer representation. I identify for you that I am not an expert on marketing boards. I have had an opportunity to learn a little about them in the course of the travels of the agriculture committee in 1973 and at the beginning of this year, I'm sorry that that opportunity was not extended under Motion 26, and previous Speakers have referred to that, because then I think we really could as Members of this House, committee members, have got down to the nuts and bolts of marketing boards. We could have found out for ourselves and for incorporation into a report what is right with marketing boards, what is wrong with marketing boards — one by one by one. But that opportunity was denied us for reasons which are still unclear, but reasons which I find most regrettable.

The commodity people with whom I have been talking, representatives of various producing agencies, marketing boards themselves, indicate to me that they have no strenuous objection to broadening the base of the existing boards. I don't think anyone in this House should attempt to cloud the issue by suggesting otherwise.

If marketing boards have been too narrowly based — that is, producer oriented only — then why in heaven's name was it not possible for the Minister of Agriculture to introduce amending legislation which would have ensured representation by consumers, representation by others, representation by wholesalers? Again, I believe that the wholesaler has an important part to play in this total chain of getting food or products from the farm to the consumer kitchen.

Surely that could have been accomplished without coming in with Bill 165, which is, I think, in the eyes of so many individuals who are directly involved in food production, just going to sort of lay over top of all the existing boards and agencies and help only to further cloud the issue and make it more difficulty for producing groups to get their message to government, and for producers and consumers to communicate on matters which are of common concern.

So may we put that to rest. I am not aware at the independent member level, in a marketing board, of any strenuous resistance to broadening the representation on those marketing boards. Indeed, in some cases I think it would be welcomed because the producers are not blind to the fact that they are not the only individuals with a direct interest in what happens from farm to kitchen.

The member for Kamloops spoke about, as I heard him, shadows in which existing marketing boards are operating — dark corners, Again I repeat, there is no need to have introduced a document of this kind setting up a major organization merely to put some light in those shadowy corners. It could have been done, perhaps, with unanimous consent of this house. I don't rule it out, Mr. Speaker; I don't rule out the possibility at all. It could have appealed to each party in this Legislature.

Now the Minister of Agriculture must recognize, inasmuch as he also represents a Vancouver Island riding, that this island has been an underdog area in the production of certain food items for a number of years — eggs, poultry, dairy products. And this is a problem to which I feel he should be addressing himself, not merely the creation of the agency proposed in this bill.

If I am incorrect with my information, I hope the Minister will correct me, when he rises to close debate, but in the last 7 years, since the creation of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, Vancouver Island has actually lost quota in spite of obvious population growth. Young farmers who are committed to farming, who are dedicated to it, who want to make it their life's work, have no chance to grow with the market requirements. So the market has been

[ Page 4504 ]

growing, but their quota has remained static.

In fact, recently, Vancouver Island producers were assigned a quota cut of what I understand to be 10 per cent. It has been labeled as a temporary measure, which is an interesting phrase when a quota is cut. But nonetheless, the egg production quota on Vancouver Island has been cut 10 percent.

This cutback is difficult to understand, and, I would think, from the Minister's point of view very difficult to explain when the island now produces only approximately 40 per cent of our market requirements. A cut on one hand, and yet we're not even at the halfway point in terms of producing the eggs that this market consumes.

The most efficient and desirable unit in any commodity in this province in the whole business of farming is the family farm unit. Those families with whom I've spoken about this bill see nothing in the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act which holds promise to them of assistance or of recognizing the pressures on the family farm unit which are increasing on a very regular basis. They've greeted it with skepticism and with very real doubts. They don't see any assurance that it is going to be of assistance to them or, indeed, as I indicated earlier, to the consumer.

Is the bill addressing itself to the very serious problems of the farm industry? I ask again: is this bill addressing itself to the very serious problems of the farm industry in British Columbia? The answer in this party would appear to be no.

As the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) said a few moments ago: Who asked for this bill? Who asked for this legislation placing a major board over the existing boards?

I would like to leave the Minister with a couple of comments. Again, he may care to respond.

This was an article which appeared in The Sidney Review earlier this year. The headline reads: "End Is in Sight For Dairy Farmers." I won't quote it all, Mr. Speaker, but a couple of paragraphs, I think, are rather interesting.

"One of the oldest of the Saanich Peninsula's industries is in danger of becoming extinct, according to a man who has made his living from it for the last 48 years.

" 'The end of dairy farming on the peninsula is in sight unless something drastic is done.' "

This is a quote from Ivor Hoskin of 1666 Mt. Newton Cross Road.

" 'Dairy farming will soon be nonexistent.'

"Hoskin cited himself as an example and as a warning of what he said he could see coming. Two weeks ago" — and I point out that this article is now a few months old — "he was forced to sell his herd of 60 dairy cattle to an Alberta family which arrived at his farm early one morning, loaded the cattle aboard specially-built trucks and headed back to their home province. In one morning, 48 years of work and love was loaded and hauled away.

"Hoskin said: 'll guess it was time I retired but I really wasn't ready to. You work all those years; you see the way things are ending up. It's really kind of sad.' "

He was quoted later in the article as saying:

" 'There are no young farmers interested in taking over herds,' adding that he didn't blame the young farmer for not wanting to invest their lives in what was fast becoming an impossible career.

" 'In 1956,' he said, 'there were 100 dairy farms on the peninsula. In the last few years the number has shrunk to 20' — that was before last July, 1974 — 'and since then another five farms have sold their herds and gone out of the dairy business.'

"He knows of at least four other farmers who are contemplating doing the same thing."

Bill 165. We can have the procedural debate; we can have the philosophy. Who asked for it, Mr. Speaker? Who is it designed to help?

Will it help the producers? Probably not. No.

Will it help the consumers? Help could be afforded with the existing boards with minor changes which are within the competence of this Legislature.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened attentively to a producer, who happens to be a Member of this House (Mr. Lewis) talk about the price he was getting for his culls: 4 cents a pound from William Scott and Company Limited.

He expressed other concerns outside of this Legislature a few days before which he didn't express in the House, and I was rather surprised. I was rather surprised that that Member makes certain statements outside of the House and is unwilling to do so inside regarding the processing plant to be established in the Enderby area. He is very critical. He even went so far as to use the name of the farm and distribute some of the invoices from William Scott and Company. Yet a few days before, he criticized the new president of the processing plant. But not in the Legislature — no way. He's not about to criticize in here. The Minister is too close to him.

This is what he had to say about the new president — and I might be wrong in pronouncing his name — Liedtke. He said that Mr. Kiedtke's multiple roles bother him and appear to put the board chairman in a conflict-of-interest position. Well, certainly, if he has that concern about the president of William Scott and Company Limited on the outside of this chamber, he should be able to relate that concern to the Minister in this assembly.

[ Page 4505 ]

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: Yes, that's a serious accusation he made outside of this assembly about the new president of the processing plant.

He's concerned as well that in the construction of the board there might be a minority in the interior. All he wanted to talk about yesterday weren't these facts, which he related to the press a few days before, but what he was getting for his culls. Everybody knows that culls shouldn't necessarily command top prices.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): We've got one standing on his feet right now. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chabot: Well, we'll have to consider the source it comes from — the chicken-plucker from Shuswap.

Mr. Speaker, I was a little apprehensive…. I shouldn't say apprehensive; I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this canned press release from the Premier's office, dated November 1, 1974, in which the government wishes to inform the people of British Columbia relative to the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, Bill 165.

And here's the information they relayed to the people of British Columbia, which is not contained in the bill: "Appointments" — misspelled — "to the new board will be made by cabinet, with representation reflecting consumers as well as producers."

Well, Mr. Speaker, where is it in the bill? Why can't it be included in the bill? No, they want that old flexibility — that flexibility that allowed them to bring in political friends for some of these top-paying jobs.

I'll never forget, Mr. Speaker, when the executive assistant to — the Minister of Agriculture was appointed. He was being interviewed by a radio station up in Nanaimo.

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: Certainly it has. He was questioned as to his background.

He said: "Well, I was a bit of a union organizer."

"Well, how does that qualify you to be the executive assistant to the Minister of Agriculture?"

He said, "Well, I've known the Minister for 20 years. "

That's his qualification. Is that going to be the composition of the new board — based on friendship with the Minister, based on friendship with that party over there? Not on ability, not on the fact that one is a consumer or one is a producer or the fact that one has any knowledge of agriculture in British Columbia certainly not.

If this canned press release from the Premier's office is going to tell the truth, it should say that the composition of the board is wide-open, because there are no specific guidelines as to who can be or who should be on that board.

Well, there's nothing in the bill that….

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: Yes, yes, Mr. Member, there's very little doubt that Frank Howard is getting one of these top jobs. Not necessarily on this board, but there are so many boards being established in this province that he'll end up with a job just like Ron Harding. He's next for the big job. But the Minister hasn't given us any indication as to how this bill is going to help the producers of British Columbia or the consumers.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Chabot: There is nothing in the statements of the Minister indicating how this bill will help the forest workers or the fishermen of British Columbia. He hasn't made any statements. When one looks at the definition of the products this bill is related to, it's related directly to the forest industry and the fishing industry in British Columbia. There's nothing in this bill that indicates to me that more employment will be created in the forest industry.

But I have to agree that the bill will create employment to a certain degree. They will appoint 10 friends of the government on the board as well as the backup staff. It will create jobs there.

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: Oh, yes, it will create control, no doubt about that — control. But it will do nothing about the crisis we have in the forest industry. Is this bill going to bring in a marketing procedure for chips, logs or lumber? It can. Why hasn't the Minister told us what it's going to do? It's in the bill.

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister Of Housing): Are you advocating that?

Mr. Chabot: No, Mr. Minister of Housing. I want more housing in British Columbia. And I'll tell you that this bill isn't going to create more housing, and you know it.

We're facing in British Columbia a very serious crisis in the forest industry where about 20 per cent of the workers in that industry are unemployed — approximately 15,000 people today. Is this bill going to help those people who are unemployed in British Columbia in the forest industry, our key industry in this province? There are no indications that it will, none whatsoever.

[ Page 4506 ]

Unemployment is rising in British Columbia — the only area of Canada where it's rising. The Prairies have an unemployment rate of about 2.5 per cent. Here in British Columbia we see there are 65,000 people unemployed. Is this bill going to help these people? Certainly not. Unemployment is substantially higher this year than it was in October of last year. Is this marketing procedure going to help these forest industries?

There are provisions in the definition. The Minister hasn't told us what it will do for the forest industry and the people who are unemployed in British Columbia. Will there be regulations in this bill to regulate the price of chips that are paid in this province and to regulate the price on logs in British Columbia?

An Hon. Member: Nobody could do a worse job than you.

Mr. Chabot: You just listen, Mr. Member. Can-Cel is the biggest rip-off artist in British Columbia in the forest industry. It recently declared some profits….

An Hon. Member: How much?

Mr. Chabot: I'll read how much. "Canadian Cellulose Company reports net earnings for the three months ended September 30 of $14.3 million, or $1.7 a share, after application of a tax-loss credit." Tax-loss credit!

Well, I've listened to the Premier stand in here and attack some of the oil companies because they are adjusting to tax-loss situations as well. He stands up here and attacks Standard Oil. Oh, terrible ripoff artists! But when it happens to be Can-Cel, Mr. Speaker, oh, it's great efficiency on the part of the government.

Double-standard government — that's what we have in this province, Mr. Speaker. Double standard. I am attacking the administration and the mishandling and the ripoff of the small sawmills of this province by that monopoly Can-Cel with strings directed from Victoria by that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

They declared, Mr. Speaker, not only this profit for the three-month period but a profit in 1973 as well — a profit of over $12 million off the backs of the small sawmills of this province….

Deputy Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Chabot: …by the ripoff on chip prices, Mr. Speaker….

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the principle of the bill, please.

Mr. Chabot: The principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is fairly broad. The principle of the bill talks about natural products and that means any product of agriculture, or of the forest, sea, lake or river. I am talking about the natural products in one of the very specific areas mentioned in the definition of this bill. Other Members talked probably more specifically about agriculture and I'm relating mine probably more specifically to the forest industry.

And that Minister, Mr. Speaker, has known for some considerable time that Can-Cel has been stealing chips from the small sawmills in British Columbia. He has known for over 14 months that I'm aware of that Can-Cel has been stealing chips. What has he done outside of going on radio, talking to the newspapers and going on television and suggesting that the price of chips is too low in British Columbia? But what has he done about it? He has continued to allow that so-called Crown corporation, that monopoly in the north to ripoff the little sawmills with its price on wood chips, paying under $10 a unit.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: Paying under $10.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Columbia River has the floor.

Mr. Chabot: Crestbrook has never paid as little as that monopoly Can-Cel has. That's true. They've always paid more.

An Hon. Member: Prove it.

Mr. Chabot: They are in the process of negotiating a new chip contract at the moment. They are. There's no evidence that you're in the process of negotiating new chip contracts.

Your price has always been substantially lower in Castlegar than it has been at Skookumchuck by Crestbrook. And the Minister has the gall to go before television and tell the people that we're going to do something about chips while Can-Cel is stealing chips from the small sawmills of British Columbia at an unrealistic price of $10 or $10 and less per unit. It certainly doesn't reflect, unless there is a recent adjustment which you haven't made public. It was $9.60, to be exact, while chip prices commanded in Puget Sound in the neighbourhood of $52 a unit in Canadian dollars.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member relate his remarks to the principle contained in this bill?

[ Page 4507 ]

Mr. Chabot: I am talking about the regulation of chip prices, this marketing board is about a product of the forest.

In the Vancouver market, chips commanded an average price of $35 per unit — bone-dry unit; in the central interior it was in the neighbourhood of $18.50. And all we get from Can-Cel are statements from the Minister that he's going to do something about the chip price. That Minister has known for 14 months that I am aware of that Can-Cel has been ripping off the small sawmills in British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chabot: Welfare for Can-Cel, off the sweat and brow of the little operators that are shutting down in British Columbia today.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: That's right. Jobs are disappearing. The Premier and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) make light of it today. Fifteen thousand people unemployed.

I think they should have an efficient administration that can make money, but they shouldn't make money off the backs of the small sawmills of this province. And that's exactly what they've done in the last many months.

We know that Rim Forest Products had to shut down in Hazelton. There was a meeting of 600 people, where the Minister didn't show, where they wanted some answers from the Minister. The Minister failed to show there in Hazelton where 600 people wanted to hear what he was going to do to keep that sawmill open. Yet, the principals in Rim Forest Products suggested that if there was a realistic upward revision in the price of chips, they could continue to operate….

Deputy Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Chabot: …not necessarily make a profit but provide jobs in the Hazelton area. And all we've heard from that Minister are statements on television over the last several months suggesting that he's going to do something….

Deputy Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Chabot: …as tens of thousands of people become unemployed in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member if he is discussing marketing boards in relation to his remarks.

Mr. Chabot: Oh, absolutely. I am talking about marketing boards in relation to these remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Would you make a better connection between the bill and….

Mr. Chabot: I am talking about products of the forest. Wood chips are products of the forest.

Deputy Speaker: While it is true that forest products are mentioned as….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: It is true that wood chips are mentioned as one of the natural products. I have no objection to the Hon. Member discussing what products are under this bill as long as he relates it to the entire bill, which is marketing boards.

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: Yes, fine, thank you, Mr. Speaker. But what assistance is this bill, The Natural Products Marketing Act, going to give to the small sawmills that need more from their chips from Can-Cel? Is this bill going to stop Can-Cel from gouging the small sawmills in this province on their wood chips?

If they are able to get a realistic and honest price for their chips, they could continue to operate, continue to provide jobs in British Columbia. Is this bill going to assist the small sawmills to continue to provide jobs? Is it going to regulate? Is it going to make Can-Cel more honest in its dealings with the small sawmills in this province? Is it going to make Can-Cel be more responsible, this monopoly?

It appears, in view of the fact that the Minister has known for so many months that the price of chips has been too low in this province, that he must have a conflict of interest between his anxiety to make a profit on Can-Cel and his responsibility as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to ensure that the forest is harvested in an orderly fashion so that jobs can be provided in this province.

We know what has happened — the monopoly position that the Minister ensured would take place in the Kootenays when they bought out Kootenay Forest Products. Is this bill going to regulate that monopoly position, it established in that part of the Kootenays?

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): You haven't been in the House for two days.

Mr. Chabot: It ensured that they can be able to continue to enjoy a monopoly position at Castlegar with their pulp mill, so that no one else could build a pulp mill in the Nelson area and compete effectively on the price of chips. Oh no, they want the

[ Page 4508 ]

stranglehold, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! I believe that the Hon. Member is tending to wander away from the principle of the bill and is rather discussing a subject more directly relevant to the Minister of Lands and Forests. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the bill.

Mr. Chabot: Not only has Can-Cel ripped off the small sawmills of British Columbia with their chips, they've enjoyed subsidized stumpage rates as well — substantially lower than their competitors in the private sector. But, I guess, anything to show profit. Destroy the small sawmills at a very trying time, while 15,000 people are unemployed in the forest industry — and the Premier laughs. The Premier laughs. They're making a tremendous profit, Mr. Speaker, at Can-Cel by refusing to pay a realistic price for chips, with the consequence that people are being unemployed in the small sawmills in the north.

Mr. Speaker, I think you should have a responsibility, as the Member for Skeena that's so seriously affected, to speak out against this ripoff by Can-Cel that is destroying jobs in the northwest part of this Province.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister Of Lands, Forests And Water Resources): They're the only ones with full employment.

Mr. Chabot: Rim Forest Products. The Minister is suggesting now, Mr. Speaker, that Rim Forest Products is fully employed. Well, all they ask, Mr. Speaker, is that they get a realistic price for their chips so that they can continue to provide jobs in that area. Has the Minister done that? He's known for some considerable time that there's been a need for a number of revisions.

Now is this bill going to regulate the Christmas tree industry, Mr. Speaker? I don't know whether it's going to regulate the Christmas tree industry or not. The bulk of the Christmas trees harvested in this province come from my constituency.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're the biggest decoration of them all.

Mr. Chabot: We have about 60,000 acres of land in Christmas tree production in the valley I come from, primarily owned by American Christmas tree companies — Christmas tree companies that are getting subsidized taxation by this government, continued by your government, paying in the neighbourhood of 6 to 8 cents an acre in taxation per year. And this government has done nothing. It has done nothing to ensure that a fair share is paid by these Christmas tree companies. They've done nothing.

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: No, I'm not in favour of 6 to 8 cents an acre taxation, Mr. Minister. I think, providing, Mr. Minister, that you have a realistic tax structure there, yes — providing it's not a boondoggle like all your legislation that you've introduced, all mucked up and mixed up and that has to be changed practically every session. Like the Landlord and Tenant Act — we're changing it now this fall. We'll probably change it in the spring too. Once Rankin has a chance to examine it, he'll probably tell them again what's wrong. They are apparently not able to find out what's wrong themselves. They need Rankin.

No, Mr. Speaker, this bill will do nothing but create the odd job for friends — Frank Howard. What's the name of that labour leader that got defeated in Vancouver East — Paddy Neale? Barrett's old roommate's got a job now on the Energy Commission; can't find him a job. Rhodes is doing quite well. I don't think he'll fit in on this board; he's got too good a job right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: The give away gang over there are pretty touchy this afternoon. A $103 million give away in welfare. How many other give away programmes have we seen from that government? Tens of millions of dollars, a safari by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) to Harrison Hot Springs, with all his clerks….

Deputy Speaker: Would the Hon. Member please return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Chabot: All his staff.

Is this bill, Mr. Speaker, going to regulate some of the purchases, some of the buildings? Sorry, it doesn't mention that. But is the office of this new bureaucracy, the Natural Products Marketing Act, going to be established in the Glenshiel Hotel? (Laughter.)

Mr. Chabot: You know, that's a new government building, and I'm wondering whether the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), Mr. Speaker, is setting up offices in that place where the taxpayers got ripped off — the Glenshiel Hotel across the way.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! I hardly think that the Hon. Member's remarks are related to the principle of this bill. I ask you not to be facetious and to return to the principle of the bill.

[ Page 4509 ]

Mr. Chabot: Where? Where are the offices going to be? Are they going to be somewhere in Vancouver at $14 a square foot rental, or are they going to be in the renovated Glenshiel Hotel, or are they going to be in that extravagant tourist information booth, which cost $250,000, located in Golden? Where are they going to be located? I have a right to know.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Are you attacking Golden?

Mr. Chabot: I'm attacking the extravagance and the waste of that government establishing a $250,000 tourist information booth in Golden when the government of Alberta has a tourist information booth worth $5,000 doing as much.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member please discuss the principle of the bill?

Mr. Chabot: Well, I'm just trying to figure out where the office is going to be, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, this bill will do nothing for the consumers of British Columbia. There's no evidence in the bill that the consumers will be assisted. There's no evidence that the producers will be assisted. There's no evidence that the producers will be assisted by this legislation. It does a few things, though. It produces more bureaucracy. It produces more socialism, more control, more hacks, less action, less freedom, less production. It's not worthy of support, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I thought that the Premier would get up and have a few words to say about this bill. He's been doing a lot of chattering across the floor, and I thought that maybe he would like to say a few words. Would you like to say a few words?

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, the Premier's hardly been in the House during this debate, and just now he tried some more of this buffoonery that he tried down in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the Hon…? Order!

Mr. Phillips: I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that you didn't draw him to order when he stood on his feet in this House and tried to take my place in the debate. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the Hon. Member had been listening, he would have heard that I was stating that the Hon. Member for South Peace River had the floor, which would indicate that any other Member should be seated.

I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River to continue on the principle of the bill.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we asked on Monday afternoon to have this bill hoisted for six months in order that the people who will be affected by this bill, mainly the producers of foodstuffs in this province, we were chastised and criticized by the government. But during the debate, and during the week, we realize as we get more input from the producers in this province, that they really haven't had an opportunity to have their say. The people who this Minister was going to consult with before bringing in legislation like this have not been consulted, because, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out when I spoke in favour of the amendment to have the bill suspended for six months, this is just another bill to give the government more control over yet another section of the economy of this province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This government evidently has the farmers in this province in the old squeeze play, and either they go along with this superboard which will give the government direct control over all of their operations, or maybe the Minister is going to hang over their head the hatchet of not going along with price support. This is the type of consultation that this Minister has had with the producers in this province.

It has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should have gone to the agricultural committee, as was originally suggested and promoted by the Minister of Agriculture. But we fear for that Minister, because he knows full well that had this bill gone to the agricultural committee where we would be able to summon witnesses and to talk openly with those people who are presently dealing on boards, that we may get to the root of some of the problems that presently exist in the operation of marketing boards — some of the problems which this bill will not do one thing to remedy.

During the debate this week, we have not heard from one government Member in this Legislature who could advise us of the benefits of this legislation to either the producer or the consumer. Not one single word in support. But the emphasis has been on how this government will, by this legislation, have direct control over not only the existing marketing boards, but those that they will create under this legislation; not only control over the marketing boards, but over every single farmer in this province.

It's interesting to note that in the press release

[ Page 4510 ]

which the Minister released when the bill was introduced, that the emphasis in his press release is on control. I'd just like to read one short paragraph from that press release.

The Minister said that: "Marketing boards have the potential to be an effective instrument of agricultural policy but need competent direction and control" — control by this government. When he introduced the bill, in speaking to the principle of the bill, he emphasized that the most important new role for this government would be: (1) the power to change or cancel orders, and (2) the authority to hear appeals from orders or rules from existing boards. He spent some length, Mr. Speaker, on his support for the government boards over which he will have direct control.

Then he went into discussing the egg situation and the slaughter of cattle, but most of his emphasis was on the fact that the government will now be able to alter or cancel rules and regulations from existing boards. This, in my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, is exactly as has been stated by practically every speaker this week — more government intervention and more direct control, more unchecked power in the hands of the Minister. This is typical of other legislation which we will see introduced during this session, Mr. Speaker. Not only this board, but a board to rule on rent increases; a board to study taxation; a board to hear appeals from taxpayers. We keep heaping bureaucracy on bureaucracy, until we start sucking out the very lifeblood of the taxpayers in British Columbia, killing their incentive to survive and killing their will to work.

I believe that there was a grave error committed when this legislation was not referred to the agricultural committee. I think we need a thorough airing of marketing boards, not only in this province, but in Canada. The concept of marketing boards was brought in in the early '30s, but today things are different. Although they have done a lot of good — and there have been some problems with them — I think by a proper airing of what the concept is, where they fit into this year — 1975, that the purpose and the benefits of marketing boards could have been achieved without this control by the government. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I believe that people can have control over their own affairs without a super-powerful government making all of the rules and regulations. What we want is to encourage the production of foodstuffs in this province, to the benefit not only of the producer, but to the benefit of the consumer.

I would like to just quote a few remarks from a recent article by Charles May, who is a producer himself, with regard to marketing boards, to point out one of the reasons why marketing boards, and the concept of marketing boards, should have been aired, should have been brought out in the open, and should have been checked into by the agricultural committee. It seems to be the concept that all provinces in Canada have marketing boards, but he points out in this article that: "B.C.'s production under marketing board control decreased 8.7 per cent between 1943 and 1971" — "decreased". In other words, it was the farmer who produced — and this article is referring to the growing of carrots, cabbages, onions and potatoes, which are common vegetables grown. "B.C.'s production under marketing board control decreased 8.7 per cent between 1943 and 1971."

I remember travelling with the agricultural committee and being in the West Kootenays where land is going unfarmed that is very suitable for the growing of vegetables.

Another important point: Alberta and Manitoba. Manitoba's figure for the same period shows a 78 per cent increase. There are no controls of any kind on the producers in Alberta and Manitoba. Our imports from the U.S. increased 68.1 per cent during the same period.

This is not a general condemnation of marketing boards, Mr. Speaker, but it is one of the reasons why marketing boards and the concept of marketing boards should have been discussed freely in an open debate. The superimposition of a super marketing board is merely going to compound the problems.

Elsewhere in the article it says:

"Since the inception of marketing boards, some of the boards have increased the cost of selling by as much as 200 per cent. The boards never have improved the lot of the rank and file of producers by one jot or title but have constantly implied that if there were no boards, prices would have been better."

Maybe prices would have been better to the consumer, maybe prices would have been better to the producer, and maybe we would have more production in British Columbia today. These are questions, Mr. Speaker, that I can't answer. But these are the questions that should be answered before this superboard imposes its power over all marketing boards in British Columbia.

Elsewhere in this article there is another important quote that I'd like to make. It says,

"If there were a free market as there is in every country in the western world except some parts of Canada, I believe many people sitting on partially-developed farmland in the lower Fraser Valley, Pemberton Meadows and many other communities in the southern interior would grow a considerable acreage of vegetables."

The questions we have to ask and which we have been asking all week are: Is the implementation of this legislation and of this control by the Minister of Agriculture going to increase the production of

[ Page 4511 ]

foodstuffs in this province? Is it going to keep farmers on the land? Is it going to give them the will to put their land into production?

There seems to be a split in the cabinet between the Minister of Consumer Services and the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture seems to think that marketing boards will improve production; the Minister of Consumer Services seems to think they curtail production.

I was very interested in what the Minister of Consumer Services had to say when she was talking about CEMA, our egg marketing board. She said they ran into quite a problem finding markets for these eggs. In other words, our egg producers are over producing and, evidently, the national marketing board is not fulfilling its function in finding a market for these eggs.

Now, my question to the Minister — and I certainly hope he answers it when he closes this debate — is: how much sales effort and how much emphasis is going to be placed on sales effort by this new superboard? There was not too much mention by the Minister that emphasis was going to be on sales. The main emphasis is that it's going to be on control.

The Minister of Consumer Services, in talking about egg production, said that when the market is overloaded, the price goes down. She referred to the automotive industry and the appliance industry. She said that instead of lowering prices to increase consumption, they raise the price to maintain a profit. This makes me question the credibility of our Minister of Consumer Services if that's all she knows about the marketing of products in a supply-and-demand situation.

From her talk, she enforced the statement that the government wants to control the production, the marketing and the distribution of all foodstuffs in Canada. I say that when the full intent of this bill is enforced, it will be a sorry day not only for the consumer but, as well, for the producer.

If we keep on bringing in government bureaucratic boards and government control, the whole system of government in British Columbia will fall apart at the joints. This bill is just one more example of this government's inability to come to grips with the problems of the day. It's another example of hysterical reaction and of piling bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy in the hope of smashing the problem out of existence. This bill is a misapplication of this Legislature.

We have seen entirely too much of this type of legislation from this government and from this Minister. The people of this province are suffering from bureaucratic bungling. Another example of this is the complete chaos that has been created in this province on taxation. Bungling by the Minister of Finance. The complete chaos in this province on the matter of assessment was brought about by bringing in legislation without being able to foresee the results. This is just more of that legislation, more of that typical legislation they have brought in in the past two years.

We have seen legislation brought in in the spring session by the Attorney-General on the rent control. Same type of legislation. Another superboard that we're creating here by this legislation to control another segment of our society that has ended up, as the Minister admits, in complete chaos. The Rentalsman has been a complete failure.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Set up another board. Now he has problems. What's he going to do? The Attorney-General is going to establish another board. More bureaucracy. Exactly the same theme that we are seeing here in this legislation before us: create another board; rule another segment of our society.

All we have to do is look at the complete mismanagement by the Minister of Finance and the finances of this province. All we have to do is look at the horrendous overrun by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and we get to realize what a devastating effect and what a devastating mess the affairs of this province are in.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, the Minister with the chips on his shoulder said, "Don't give me that garbage." All of the errors that this government has created so far will come home to roost. They will see the error of their way in creating this superboard or underestimating and overspending.

But let's get to the real root of the problem. Let's look at what is happening to food prices in British Columbia and what has happened, a situation that this board will certainly not improve. I'd like to take a look for just a moment, if I may, to what has happened under the old marketing boards to the price of foodstuffs. Have problems as they may, let's take a look.

In the years 1959 to 1974, the price of milk is up 134 per cent; the price of butter is up only 35 per cent. The price of eggs is up only 61 per cent. The price of steak is up only 93 per cent; chicken up 99.9 per cent; potatoes 114 per cent; coffee is 150 per cent; hamburger, 58 per cent. Wages, Mr. Speaker, in the same period are up…

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: …147.4 per cent. You don't have to have too much intelligence to realize that the prices of foodstuffs have not increased in the same

[ Page 4512 ]

ratio as wages, and yet many of our politicians would lead us to believe that foodstuffs have gone out of reach of the working person. I realize that there are problems with those on fixed income and those on social welfare, but the price of food has not gone up in the same proportion to wages in that 15-year period.

Of eight of the items, only coffee is up a greater percentage than wages, so certainly our marketing boards must have done something to keep the price of foodstuffs at a level that they can be afforded by the wage-earner. But, during that same period, the cost of government has increased 606 per cent — 606 per cent, Mr. Speaker — and this is exactly what we're talking about here today.

This bill is another cost to the taxpayers of this province; another cost of government. We were talking about the open market and items that floated on the free-market on the supply-and-demand basis, and the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) mentioned the automobile business. The price of automobiles has only increased 49 per cent in the 15-year period from 1959 to 1974, while wages increased 147 per cent. But the astounding thing is this: while wages increased 147 per cent, take-home net pay after taxes increased only 120 per cent.

If you want to look at the price of foodstuffs in relation to the time that it takes to earn the money to buy a quart of milk, you will find there is a 2.8 per cent reduction in the amount of time a person must work in order to provide sufficient wages to buy a quart of milk. There is a reduction….

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: A glass of beer is even less.

Mr. Phillips: There is a reduction of 43 per cent in the amount of time required to earn a pound of butter; a reduction of 33 per cent in the amount of time to earn sufficient money to buy a dozen eggs. So although the amount of time that is required has gone down, the wages of the taxpayers are being siphoned off, Mr. Speaker, to run the ever-increasing bureaucracies of government. This is exactly what is happening in this province.

While our government goes on an inflationary joy-ride with no heed as to how it is going to affect the taxpayers of this province, the earning power reduces, because every time they make a net gain in wages it is siphoned off in taxes. This is exactly what is happening in this bill here. It may not seem — the Attorney-General can smile and say, "Well, you know, what's a little ten-man board?" — but let's just take a look, Mr. Speaker. Let's just take a look and put things in perspective as to what has happened in the Province of British Columbia in the last two years, when this government has compounded the cost of running this provincial government by tens of thousands of per cent.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, the Attorney-General laughs. We must also realize, Mr. Speaker, that the direct cost of taxation and of running this government is directly related to the production of food. We have had, in the last year, increased as much as 1,000 per cent in land taxes, in some instances. This is directly related to the cost of production of food. We have had a 30 per cent increase in the cost of natural gas. We have had a 20 per cent increase in the cost of hydro for homeowners. We will have up to a 70 per cent increase in the cost of hydro to industry. There is a tax of one-tenth of one per cent in the Capital Tax Employment Act. All of these taxes, Mr. Speaker, must be related back to the cost of the production of food.

Gasoline — we're paying approximately 10 cents more for a gallon of gasoline in the Province of British Columbia than they are in any of the three other western Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta.

All of these extra costs are added onto the cost of the production of food. These are costs that our farmers must bear and must relate back to the cost of production, and in turn the consumer must pay.

Taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, are now paying subsidies, guaranteed costs of production to farmers, but who is really paying the taxes? Who is really paying? It is the taxpayers. It is the taxpayers who are paying, and indirectly their cost of food is related to the cost of government. The only thing is, Mr. Speaker, when the price of food goes up it's printed in the paper and every housewife in British Columbia knows about it. But when the indirect taxes which I have just mentioned, levied by this government go up, nobody seems to say anything. It's time that the people of this province realized where it's at, and what is happening to their wages, and how it's directly related to their cost of living.

We talk about government control, Mr. Speaker. Look what happened to the cost of land for houses in the last five years — 1969 to 1974. The cost of a lot increased 300 per cent; the cost of an average house increased 236 per cent, due directly to the control placed on land by that same Minister of Agriculture. The government is going into housing — rent controls. What has it done, Mr. Speaker? More government control has curtailed the construction of apartment buildings in this province, created a demand, and naturally up goes the price.

What I'm saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is this: more government controls eventually mean more cost to the consumer. Experience after experience in this province proves that.

What other goings on are there within the province

[ Page 4513 ]

that the public really don't seem to be aware of that directly affects them — more government control, Mr. Speaker? Take a look at the cost of commissions that have been established in this province in the last two years. What's $5 million for Mr. Gaffney's commission to study economics? What's $5 million? How does that relate to the price of food, Mr. Speaker?

An Hon. Member: How do you relate to…?

Mr. Phillips: If your tax dollars are being siphoned off for commissions and bureaucracies which we are establishing here, that gives you less money, Mr. Speaker, to spend on your food.

We spent $1 million on the Foulkes Report. For what? The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) says, "Oh, it's just a discussion paper. What's $1 million? It'll never be missed." What's $1 million out of a $2 billion budget?

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister Of Health): Where did you get that figure? You're wrong as usual.

An Hon. Member: It's more than that.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, it's probably more than that.

An Hon. Member: It's more than $1 million.

Mr. Phillips: I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, when the taxes from the natural resources of this province dry up as they are drying up this year…. The forest industry is no longer having its best year in history. The mining industry is moving out.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Wrong again.

Mr. Phillips: Where are the tax dollars going to come from to pay for all of the bureaucracy that has been created by this government? They're going to come directly from the taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. While this government set off on a trend two years ago on an inflationary spiral, it hasn't stopped since. It's the consumer who is being caught up.

It's the consumer who is putting the blame on food prices, putting the blame on the wholesaler and the marketplace, while the poor farmer…. It takes him as much time today to produce a dozen eggs or a pound of butter or a quart of milk as it did years ago.

It's time, Mr. Speaker, that we took a real look at where our real dollars are going. Look at the Pearse report on forestry — another $200,000. The Environment and Land Use Commission budget will probably run about $5 million. More government bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker. The police commission will probably run $0.5 million. Educational studies outside of the Bremer report will probably run at $200,000. How much is it going to cost to run this board without any direct benefits to either the consumer or the taxpayer?

The hue and cry today is about inflation. We hear governments condemning inflation. They say it is the greatest problem we have to cope with. The Premier went down to Ottawa to have a discussion with the Prime Minister of inflation, and yet this government is one of the greatest contributors to inflation of any provincial government in Canada. And who suffers, Mr. Speaker? The consumer and the taxpayer do.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Why are some 40 minutes longer than others?

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he appears to have three minutes left in his speech?

Mr. Phillips: The government of this province is stealing the people of this province blind with taxation, creating a society that, if the trend of the last two years continues, 80 per cent of the population will be dependent on this government and subject to their whims and their bureaucracy. Individual enterprise will disappear, and the state will control all the means of production and the distribution. That's what this bill is all about.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is just one more step forward in that direction. It will not help the farmer increase his production. Indeed, it will curtail his activities.

I predict that this legislation will drive farmers off the land. And it will do nothing to help feed the starving millions of the world that we hear so much about. It's more government bureaucracy, and to see the Premier in particular sit over there and smile…more power for the cabinet, more control, until eventually the means of production dries up entirely.

We have seen what has happened in countries where the government controls all the means of production. They come to us, Mr. Speaker, to buy grain. They come to us to buy grain!

I mentioned this at quite some lengths, Mr. Speaker, during debate on Bill 42. And I told this very Legislature that the intent of this government was to gain control over all means of production of foodstuffs in this province. This is helping; this is one step, one more step forward, in that direction.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: You're in trouble, Mr. Minister of Finance, (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and it's all right for you to come into this Legislature and put on that false smile. You're in trouble financially. The province is in trouble financially. You have created the fiasco, and

[ Page 4514 ]

it will come home to roost on your shoulders.

The only trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that he won't be there. It will be the people of this province that will have to pick up the tab, that will have to bear the full brunt of the irresponsibility of that Minister of Finance — the irresponsibility of his bungling. He's the guy that goes on the ego trips…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: …and wants to be the big stock broker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Smith: The point of order is simply this, Mr. Speaker: according to my calculation, the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) started his speech exactly at 5 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: I have a note here — I believe it is accurate — and it says 4:55 exactly. Somebody has to be the referee, and I am afraid it's my duty to do so.

Mr. Smith: I agree that it's your duty to do so, but I also feel that there's perhaps a difference….

Mr. Speaker: This may indicate why it's nice to have a number of people who are quite impartial determining the time.

I might point out to Hon. Members that to make it even more accurate I am asking the Hansard staff to get a timer so that we can find out when the 40 minutes has expired.

Mr. Chabot: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I don't see a point of order in this, really.

Mr. Chabot: I am not going to argue with the length of time. I agree with your 40 minutes; it was 40 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chabot: But one point. There seems to be a different approach from time to time as to the approach when a Member's time has expired.

Yesterday we saw the display of lights — green, white and red. Then another time you notified a Member…. You said you would notify a Member two minutes before the time expired. Today you rose with your hat on and informed the Member that his time had expired.

Mr. Speaker: You see how difficult it is for me when I can't get the three caucuses — or four caucuses, really — to agree. If we would all agree on a method….

Mr. Chabot: I just want you to be consistent in your approach.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sure that you will assist me in the consistency.

Mr. Chabot: That's what I am trying to do by raising this point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister Of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in the 40 minutes remaining between now and 6 o'clock I will try to deal with some of the questions that were raised by some of the Members opposite.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), the last one to speak, raised some questions about the decrease in vegetable production over a 28-year period, and suggested that a possible part of the reason for that decrease was the operation of marketing boards in the province. Yet the party of which he is a member formed the administration of this province for 19 of those years. I have never heard of that particular Member at any time raising any question about the operation of marketing boards of the province and suggesting that in any way at all the operation of those marketing boards was working against food production in the Province of British Columbia.

I suggest that there were a couple of other reasons why vegetable production might have decreased in that period. One of them was the fact that at the rate of 10,000 acres a year we were losing the best of our farmland, land on which vegetables were being produced. And that same Member, during all the period that he was in the House, never raised any objection to that happening while the party of which he is a member formed the administration.

One other factor which had some bearing in the loss of vegetable production, particularly in the interior of the province, was the fact that canneries that were operating in the interior of the province were bought out by American corporations, were closed down, and the farms, of course, closed down as well. And never during the 20 years in which the party of which he is a member formed the administration was anything done to work against

[ Page 4515 ]

that policy, nor was anything done to encourage the development of agricultural processing industries in the province.

During the debate many of the Members opposite, without saying they're against marketing boards, have tried to criticize the operation. of marketing boards. Others have said that while they support them, they don't like some of the things they're doing. Yet they're going to vote against the bill that would give the answers for which they seem to be seeking — yet which they are prepared to vote against — the fact that there should be some community involvement in the overall operation of marketing boards in the province. That's what the Members say there should be on behalf of the community, yet that is what the Members say they are going to vote against.

During the course of this debate there have been approximately 40 speeches during second reading, some of them during the amendment, some of them during second reading of the bill itself.

It seems rather curious to me that of those 40, some 39 found something to talk about in the legislation, while they hadn't apparently really made up their minds whether they wanted to vote for or against the principle of marketing boards, for or against the changes mentioned in this bill. Yet they could, sometimes rather obtusely perhaps, but they could relate their remarks to the discussion of Bill 165.

Only one Member found that unless he could try to drag in some obtuse references and some speculation as to what might have caused this bill being brought forth at this time, if he couldn't discuss that one particular point from his point of view, there was nothing worth talking about so he took his place. He might well have taken it much sooner in the debate.

The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) did raise a question and suggested that the cattlemen in his riding didn't want this legislation. Perhaps not, I'm not sure. Certainly the B.C. cattleman's organization, the whole organization, for some six months have been seeking legislation that would provide for the establishment of commissions as is provided for in this legislation.

I was rather interested in hearing his remarks about the farm income assurance plan, and hoping that in the event that the cattleman's committee did vote against any approach to my department to be included in the income assurance plan, that I would look very closely at that vote and suspect that there was something wrong if they turned it down. I take this as some endorsation from him of the farm income assurance plan, and believe that in the time that the plan has become operative in the province at least one Member of the combined opposition sees some good in the farm income assurance legislation and now supports it. I hope that others, in time, will come to support it as well.

During the course of the debate many Members have felt occasion to call on the report with which Professor Forbes is associated, and to have quoted from newspaper stories about that report and from the report itself. It's rather interesting I think perhaps to read a little more about some of the things Professor Forbes had to say that the Members opposite thought not important in this particular debate. I'll read from a report about Mr. Forbes as well.

While Mr. Forbes had a lot of bad things to say in his report about the way marketing boards have operated in Canada and B.C. — and that's the question before us now — in the interview he had some praise for the provincial government's agricultural policy, if it is properly carried out:

"I like this government; their hearts are in the right place. If they make mistakes, well, they're trying to do something for people.

"Stupich's assured income plan to guarantee farmers the cost of production of food plus a reasonable return is a good idea, if properly administered. I think it is the most interesting thing I have seen in 50 years in Canadian agriculture."

Now that, I guess, wasn't important enough to say, but that is something further from Professor Forbes.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) in opening up the attack, if you like, on Bill 165 did raise several questions.

In talking about the fruit board he suggested that the fruit board members didn't really give much support to their own organization — majority, but only barely. Perhaps that only 62 per cent of them supported their central selling, which shows there's something less than real support for their marketing scheme. He may be interested in knowing that at this time, only 32 of the fruit growers have opted to stay out of the marketing system as we have right now. The farm income assurance has been accepted by the farmers in his riding and by the rest of the Okanagan.

It's been suggested that the boards deter expansion of food production, and of course they do. I think the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) — or was it Langley (Mr. McClelland) — reading from an article about boards in The Democrat, submitted by myself. Again, he picked and chose from the article, but what he didn't say…in the article, another quotation: "In situations like this, there's need for supply management, a need to tailor the size of the crop to the available market."

Of course, this is one of the roles of marketing boards — to the available market. Not to produce in the hopes of feeding the hungry people in the whole world unless there's some machinery for getting that food to them. Certainly that's not the responsibility of the farmers in British Columbia, nor of the

[ Page 4516 ]

government in British Columbia.

The Canadian government has today announced in Rome that it is prepared to accept some additional responsibility for that, and there are complimentary programmes in Canada. The federal government's role in this field has largely been to provide food, food that is produced in Canada, not planned production, but surpluses that happen to occur, to take those surpluses and make them available to hungry people in the world. And that's a good programme; I support it. I think it's a good idea to take that off and send it where it's needed most.

The provincial government has a different plan — it's not a new one; it's not something that came up in the last two years, but it's certainly supported by this administration. Rather than trying to feed all the people in the world, which we can't possibly do, and the people who are coming, rather to concentrate on encouraging the hungry nations of the world to develop their own food production. Our programme is designed more towards education, illustration — sending people and equipment out to try to get them to encourage production.

Somebody raised the question of the Peoples Republic of China. One of the very interesting things that has happened within the last five years is the fact that they have been able, by some means on their own, to increase their food production so that while they're still importing wheat, because they want to eat wheat, they are exporting rice in large quantities and they are now pretty well self-sufficient when it comes to food. If that example could be followed by other nations, such as India, then we wouldn't have the starving problem to the extent that we have it in the world today.

But this has been our role as a provincial government, to try to encourage the developing nations to feed themselves. We can't possibly say to our farmers: "Let's do away with marketing boards; let's do away with all controls. Go ahead and produce everything you want, and somehow or other it will find its way into the bellies of the hungry people in the world." I take it that's what the Hon. Leader of the Opposition was suggesting.

He suggested there should be some better way for the farmers in Quebec to bring to the attention of the federal government and to the provincial government their problem, rather than slaughtering calves. They have been trying, Hon. Leader of the Opposition, for months to bring their problems to the attention of governments that just wouldn't listen.

I can recall, for example, when dairy farmers in British Columbia felt the only way they could possibly bring to the attention of the Social Credit government of the day the problems in the dairy industry was to bring a cow on the Legislature steps and milk it there. The cow defecated there. This happened. The Socreds did nothing for the dairy farmers. The dairy farmers in B.C. have never felt the need to do anything like that since this administration took office.

I've been asked: who wants this legislation? Who have you asked? Who really wants this? Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you who wants this legislation: the Minister of Agriculture wants this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of Agriculture who wanted the Land Commission Bill to save the agricultural land in this province, to save the agricultural land so that when the need was there we would have that land on which to grow food for Canada, for British Columbia, and to some extent for the rest of the world. We've taken steps that no other jurisdiction in the world has taken to make sure that agricultural land will be saved. That was legislation that I wanted and that the House endorsed by a majority vote.

Mr. Speaker, it was I who wanted legislation to save the farmers, and to that end brought in the farm income assurance legislation that today, when one convert from all the opposition Members, and possibly others who have not dared say that they support it, but certainly one Member has said yes. It was I who wanted that legislation to do something for the farmer so that when they are locked to their farming land, they have an opportunity to earn a decent income while they are working as farmers in the province, and not have to rely on an opportunity to sell their land some day and make their money that way.

Today it is I who am asking for legislation that will make it possible for me to work with commodity marketing boards in this province so that they will be able to do a better job of supply management in this province; so that they will be able to do a better job of convincing the people of this province that they are working not only for producers but working also for consumers.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to support this bill in second reading. I now move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

[ Page 4517 ]

NAYS — 16

Bill 165, Natural Products Marketing Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: For the information of the House, Mr. Speaker, the order of business tomorrow will be to proceed with the Minister of Health's legislation, followed by the Attorney-General's.

Mr. Speaker: Before we adjourn, Hon. Members, the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) raised a question of privilege. But looking at the authorities on page 411 of May in the 18th edition, it's clear that a complaint that a Member outside the House had attributed erroneous, misleading or completely false statements to another Member would not be sufficient to found a question of privilege.

As it indicates in May it must be using something like "deliberately misrepresenting a Member" of " deliberately misleading someone." That doesn't occur in that statement of which he complained. So I cannot see that, on that basis, it's a question of privilege.

Presenting reports

Hon. Mr. Nimsick tables the Annual Report for the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources for the year ending December 31, 1973.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, in regard to your statement, I guess I'll have to abide by your ruling. But I would like to give the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) the opportunity to apologize or, as I say, produce the figures.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister Of Transport And Communications): I told you yesterday I had produced the figures.

Hon, Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, by statute I have to provide this order-in-council for the House. If the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) needs somebody to read it to him, I might be able to provide that help.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I don't think that was necessary.

Does the Minister have leave to table his document?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.