[ Page 4763 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 177).

Mr. D.A. Anderson. Introduction and first reading — 4763

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

Committee stage.

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4764

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4764

Division on amendment to section 2 — 4764

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. Phillips — 4765

Mr. Wallace — 4765

Mr. Smith — 4765

Mrs. Jordan — 4765

Mr. Cummings — 4767

Mr. Phillips — 4768

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4768

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4770

Mr. McClelland — 4770

Division on amendment to section 3 — 4771

On section 3.

Mr. Gibson — 4771

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. Gibson — 4771

Mr. Wallace — 4772

Mr. Phillips — 4772

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4772

Mr. McGeer — 4772

Mr. Gibson — 4774

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4774

Division on amendment to section 3 — 4774

Division on section 3 — 4774

On section 4.

Mr. McGeer — 4774

Amendment to section 4.

Mr. McGeer — 4775

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4775

Mr. McGeer — 4775

Mr. Gibson — 4776

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4776

Division on amendment to section 4 — 4776

On section 6.

Mr. McClelland — 4776

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4776

On section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 4776

Amendment to section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 4777

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 4777

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 4777

On section 10.

Mr. McClelland — 4778

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4778

Mr. McClelland — 4778

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4779

Mr. McClelland — 4779

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4779

On section 11.

Mr. Phillips — 4780

Hon. Mr., Stupich — 4780

On section 12.

Mr. McClelland — 4780

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4780

Mr. McGeer — 4780

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4780

Mr. McGeer — 4781

Amendment to section 12.

Mr. McGeer — 4781

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4781

Mr. McGeer — 4782

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4782

Mr. McClelland — 4782

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4783

Mr. McGeer — 4783

Appendix — 4785

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Members have all received a sample package of food from Swan Valley Foods Limited. This is one of the enterprises in which the government has invested. The real importance of this is that this is a new processing process insofar as its application to white fruit and to vegetables is concerned. A similar process is in use in other parts of the world, but there has been a real breakthrough in the Province of British Columbia.

The company in its earlier stages and opportunities to deal with some of the big names like Weston's, Standard Brands and Labatt's, but they preferred to try and negotiate with the government and did so successfully.

The product first appeared on the market on Wednesday, I believe, at the opening of a new Woodward's store. And as one of the Woodward's officials enthusiastically said after the initial public response, he thought it was an excellent example of some free-enterprising Creston farmers cooperating with the socialist Department of Agriculture and sold by, a B.C.-owned retail chain in Shaughnessy Heights. The initial acceptance was extremely good and they're looking forward with great optimism.

Mr. Speaker: I think that was really more of a commercial than a statement. The Hon. Minister had advised me that they were putting these on the desks for the Members. I haven't seen one. Are there any free ones around? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that they've been delivered to the Members in their offices rather than in the House.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order? The point of order has priority. I hope it is a point of order.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Does the Minister realize that the secretaries in all the offices who really do all the work that we get the credit for weren't included. I wonder if it would be possible...

Mr. Speaker: My suspicion was correct. (Laughter.)

Mrs. Jordan: ...that they could be included. Otherwise they're going to eat ours.

Interjection.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, what the price is. On the one delivered to my desk, no price was indicated. In view of all the publicity given by Consumer Services to avoiding convenience foods and trying to get the best buys in supermarkets, I would if we could get some indication of price to value for this commodity?

An Hon. Member: Give him a hand, fellas.

Mr. Speaker: With leave of the House, the Minister could reply.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are four different products distributed and I have no idea which one the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey....

Mr. McGeer: Apples.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Apples: 39 cents for nine ounces of apples. Absolutely no waste, peeled and cored, and ready to eat within five minutes of heating.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, is this an emergency debate? (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I'd like an opportunity to answer that. As I say, I distributed them to all the Members so that they might taste them. I'm sure that they'll like them so much that they'll all want to rush out and buy samples for their secretaries.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Might I ask the Hon. Minister what the price of the package is in comparison to the price of the contents?

Mr. Speaker: We now have a question period on Fridays, it seems.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I think that's a question for the order paper.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPALITIES
ENABLING AND VALIDATING ACT

On a motion by Mr. D.A. Anderson, Bill 177, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating 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.

[ Page 4764 ]

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Lea presented a report from the avalanche task force which was taken as read and received.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Committee on Bill 165, Mr. Speaker.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING
(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 165; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Could I make a comment to the House? Following the completion of this, we'll move on to the committee stage of the Public Schools Act.

On the amendment to section 2.

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I believe the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) had concluded his presentation, for the moment at least, when we adjourned last night. I'll respond now, not that this will necessarily end it.

No, I'm not going to accept it, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier. The government will not accept it. The Member in his presentation seemed to assume that the volume of the appeals would be people who had really nothing to do with the working of a particular commodity board. It's been my experience since I've been in office that the real problems within the organizations have been problems of that organization — that is, problems between the producer's own marketing board and individual producers.

So it's with that in mind that I feel that the present system of naming people, whether by appointment or by election, to serve on the various commodity marketing boards is a good one. They are dealing mostly with their own members.

However, as we've said before, there are situations when they do deal with the public or take actions that do affect the public. It's when they take those actions that the public has to have some right to inquire into and to question some of the orders. If some consumer or consumer's organization or someone having nothing to do with the actual management of a particular commodity marketing board wants to challenge something that is being done, then surely they will avail themselves of the opportunities that are available to fully acquaint themselves with the situation so that they can present a case before another court.

That will be the role of the British Columbia Marketing Board in that kind of an appeal. In my experience, I would expect — not that I expect there'll be a large volume — that by far the largest number of the appeals that will arise will be appeals that have to do with the management of the boards themselves.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Minister, in his remarks a few moments ago, has indicated why he should be supporting the amendment rather than opposing it. He suggests that the people who have the greatest complaints are producers, and the reasons that they have those complaints is because the marketing board is completely controlled by other producers. If that is the case, then it would seem to me there is logic in making certain that on these marketing boards there is someone other than producers. Then the volume of complaints from people in the production segment wouldn't be so great.

Quite obviously, what the Minister is saying supports what the Member for — he's not here today — Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) was saying, that the marketing boards which are composed entirely of producers are the worst possible friends producers can have. What we want to do, Mr. Chairman, with this amendment is to make sure that we break the stranglehold that certain groups of producers may have on marketing boards, and open up membership in those marketing boards to others who have no pecuniary interest whatsoever, except the proper functioning of the marketing board concept.

I'm just startled, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) is not up on her feet supporting this amendment, because she is one who has particular knowledge of the consequences of a close control exercised over marketing boards by a small segment of our society.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 21

[ Page 4765 ]

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move the amendment to section 3 standing in my name on the order paper.

I feel very confident, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture is going to accept this motion, because this is exactly what he said in his press release when bringing this bill in — that he was going to ensure that there would be consumers on the board; he was going to ensure that there would be producers on the board. Certainly we want to see that those who are appointed to this board have been resident in Canada; otherwise we might get a situation similar to what we have in Can-Cel, where the bulk of the directors live in the United States or over in Europe. So that's just a guarantee that the members who are appointed to this board, indeed, are British Columbians.

I feel that in view of the statements the Minister of Agriculture has made, saying that he wants to ensure that there are consumers on the board and that there are producers on the board.... I know how the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) feels. She will certainly vote for this amendment, because it's right in line with the government's policy.

There is no way that they won't accept it, so let's have the motion and get it accepted and make it become part of the bill.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): I would like to be on record as supporting the amendment.

As we discussed in second reading, the main intent of this bill is supposed to be to give a wider representation in marketing board affairs to people who are not simply producers of a particular commodity. I know that this is becoming perhaps tedious and repetitious, Mr. Chairman, but nevertheless, in attempting to amend a bill like this, one inevitably runs into being repetitious by trying to change the general thrust of the bill.

I commented in second reading that section 3 just talks about appointing not more than 10 members, with no specific mention of how they might be selected or what groups they might or might not support.

While I have every confidence in this Minister that he will make a mixed choice from producers and consumers, it would be much more satisfactory to this side of the House if there was some definition in section 3 as to the proportion of the 10 members who should be consumers — a minimum of three or two or four, whatever the case might be. This amendment by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) at least makes an effort to specify one-third from producers' associations and at least one-third from consumers' groups.

Really, we've been on this principle many times in this House on former bills, that the government tells us what their intention is, but when it comes to spelling it out in legislation, it is delightfully vague and general, leaving tremendous scope to the Minister concerned. I think the word is "discretion", but some Ministers are not as discreet as others, and some cabinets are not as discreet as others.

It is my strong feeling that this is a very commendable amendment since it simply puts into much more specific language the general principle which we are all supporting on both sides of the House. I would ask the Minister to give it most serious consideration.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Speaking in support of the amendment, I think it is probably clear in the minds of all of us that we want something enshrined in the statute which will give an indication of the government's good faith and the Minister's good faith in carrying out what he has verbally said through discussions about this bill on the floor of the House and in the news media.

I think we all have too often seen appointed commissions and boards where the people who ultimately were appointed by order-in-council, after the passage of a certain Act through this Legislature, have had really no experience in the position awarded to them more on political favour than because of the fact that they would fulfil the duties properly and had expertise and experience to call upon.

I think there is a danger in the minds of the people in the basic agricultural production area that the tendency will be to load the board heavily in favour of consumer groups and people who really, while they are consumers of products, have more of an axe to grind than a contribution to make.

I would hope that the Minister would accept this amendment, as it was put forward, to clarify the situation in the minds of the public once and for all that not only do you intend to have a broad cross-section of people appointed to this 10-member board, but you are prepared to go the further step which requires at least two-thirds of the board members to be made up of the producer and consumer groups in the Province of British Columbia, There is still lots of latitude, Mr. Minister, as to the actual appointments, but I think it would only show good faith on your part if you would accept the amendment.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): In

[ Page 4766 ]

speaking in support of the amendment before the House, I, too, must confirm what other Members have said.

The Minister assures us of his good faith, but this isn't sufficient for the producers, even if it was sufficient for us, which it isn't. They want to know why the very heart of any strength they've got, in terms of bargaining or setting out their position or dealing with other sectors of business, should be put in a position where it is going to be so weakened, as it could be under this section of the bill if the Minister doesn't accept the amendment.

During the debate on the principle of the bill the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) summed it up very well. Many factors were of concern, one of which is this section, that there was so much extensive power enshrined in the bill, and the assurances that the producers' need and the consumers' need were not. She said: "We believe the Minister won't use those powers and the government won't use those powers"  that are written in the bill, "and we believe that he will do the things that he says he will do that aren't in the bill."

What she is saying is: don't believe what we write in the legislation; believe what we say. That simply isn't enough, Mr. Chairman. It's not, in fact, a responsible way to go about it; it's the exact reverse of what it should be.

It's quite common knowledge that there is conflict within the government ranks, and certainly conflict within the cabinet ranks as to what, in fact, clout the producers and the consumers should really have. I suggest that it's ducking the issue in not accepting this amendment, and it's ducking the issue in such a way that you're going to hurt the very people that this section of the bill, where it relates to appeal boards, where it should be dealt with.

You know, one of the things that is concerning the producer, and one of the reasons why it's important that the government accept this amendment, is that he and she are asking: why us? Why is the government establishing a superboard with 10 appointees, which is all-powerful over anything that our own organizations, or our own cooperatives, or our own boards do, when they wouldn't do the same for any other sector in society?

If the government's intention is to establish a superboard over unions, for example, does the Minister in all honesty feel that the union organizers and the union workers and labourers in British Columbia would accept a section, which was completely open-ended as far as appointments are concerned, and leave it to the discretion of any government of the day to appoint who should sit on that board to have all power over their affairs?

I see the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is frowning, because he knows that if the Minister of Agriculture doesn't accept this amendment he is confirming the suspicion that, in fact, the intent of this bill is considerably more than what the Minister says it is.

It has been mentioned before, and I will just mention it a moment again, the pattern that has been established by this government and openly stated by the Minister of Agriculture — that where there are boards and commissions, we will make political appointments. "Why not, he says, what's wrong with politics? We want people on those boards who think", as the Minister said himself, "as I do".

Now supposing we get a different Minister of Agriculture. If this present Minister of Agriculture's intention is truly honourable in terms of the producer's best interest, supposing the Minister of Consumer Services, in a shuffle, becomes the Minister of Agriculture: what would then happen to the producers in British Columbia?

The other point that concerns the producers in British Columbia, regardless of their own grievances that some of them may have with their own marketing board, is that it's not only important to have an avenue of appeal, it is important that the people involved in the appeal procedure, and who will rule on the appeal that is made, not only be impartial but also that they be informed.

We see whirling around us, right across Canada, and certainly in British Columbia, devastating opinions put forth by theoreticians — people who sit down and look at agriculture and agricultural production and marketing as a theory. On paper it looks tremendous: the only thing is that there's nothing theoretical about agricultural production in British Columbia. It's a very practical undertaking dealing with a perishable commodity in an environment of trade which is very difficult owing to our distance from market areas and external factors such as tariffs, trade barriers, and this sort of thing.

So if the Minister, in his wisdom, appoints somebody like Professor Forbes, for example, what opportunity is the producer going to have, unless the Minister insists that Professor Forbes go out and buy a dairy farm or an apple orchard, and build it up, maintain it and carry it on from scratch? They might get a very find theoretical decision and vote from Professor Forbes, but it just wouldn't work in the practical application of the production of products in British Columbia.

The other area of concern, and it was brought up in the former debate, but it is certainly a reason why this amendment should be accepted, is that the Minister himself said: "The producers in British Columbia have never struck; they've never gone out on strike; they've never refused to deliver their produce;" and to most intents and purposes this is quite true.

It isn't because they haven't wanted to. It isn't because they haven't wanted to exercise the same

[ Page 4767 ]

options that everybody else in society has in order to receive a fair price for their commodity and a fair share of the economy. It's because they are dealing with a perishable product. They're dealing with a product which doesn't bring a cash return until it's been sold. If a cabbage producer withholds his product, he indeed loses his income for one whole year — a whole year's work — and he still has to carry on with his taxes and his overhead. So it's virtually impossible, unless he happens to have another major income, for him to withhold his produce.

If fruit producers withhold their produce or refuse to man their orchard, which is their production machinery, then it's not only the loss of the income for one year that they suffer; it is a loss of the productivity and the efficient productivity of that producing machinery in the trees. If they don't prune, then they don't get fresh wood, and next year they won't get as good a crop. If they don't thin, then they overload the trees, over-use its resources and diminish the strength and productivity of that tree for the next year and possible more years.

In other words, if they don't spray and the codling moths get into their orchard, they've got problems for years. If it were someone with a cherry orchard and the cherry fruit fly got into the orchard, it could be disastrous to the whole industry.

So the producers in British Columbia, in light of the fact of all the external problems and in light of the fact that society in British Columbia has said that they must keep their land in agricultural production regardless, need very special protection if they are to survive and if they, together, are to serve their partners, the consumers.

Mr. Minister, by not accepting this...or let me put it positively. By accepting this amendment you would be assuring the producer in British Columbia and, I believe, the consumer that they are going to have some strength, that your assurance to the House that they've never been on strike isn't a smokescreen, and that we as a Legislature, and we as people in British Columbia, recognize that they are an industry with most peculiar problems, some of which are completely uncontrollable by any provincial level of government and some that are completely uncontrollable by any government — except perhaps the most senior authority of all, who controls the weather.

I would urge the Minister to think through this amendment very carefully, to think through the arguments and hopefully the helpful suggestions that have been put forth by each Member of the opposition, and to meet this commitment to the producers and to the consumers in this province.

If not, then I suggest that the Minister is going to have to take the same position in relation to other power groups in British Columbia, because he will be setting the precedent. It will be he who is not enshrining in the Legislature and in the legislation of British Columbia the rights of the producer that he is prepared to enshrine in other legislation for other groups.

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to take my place in this debate. I would like to address a few words to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), through you, Mr. Chairman.

When the Lieutenant-Governor appointed you, he called you the Minister of Agriculture. I think he implied by this that you should represent them, and help them to lead a prosperous, happy life. It was necessary to create many boards so that his income could be regulated.

We granted these boards immense powers — actually far greater powers. I reject that a board is the equivalent of a union, because a union has two checks on it. It has the check of management and it has the check of government. These fruit boards are a combination of government and management and the worker, who is the farmer. There is another party, and this party is the consumer.

Mr. Minister, I feel that there's a possible conflict of interest in your position of being Minister of Agriculture and being a very, very, fair and hardworking man.... You're probably the finest Minister of Agriculture the farmer's ever had. There's no doubt that you have surrounded yourself with practical farmers in your department, botanists and other people that have almost a vested interest in farmers' interests. I feel that they even have a conflict of interest in their advice they give you.

All we have to do is look to Ottawa for a Minister of Agriculture, a federal Minister, who was charged by the Governor-General to represent the farmers' interests. With all deference to you, sir, there is a perfect example of a Minister of Agriculture gone wild. We have eggs, we had other abuses, all done in the name of holding down production to raise prices - which is only one way of increasing income. I would suggest to you that maybe increasing volume is another way, which is probably a better way.

But after very, very careful thought, I have looked and I realize that there is no possible amendment to this Act. It all boils down to the good will of the Minister of Agriculture. I am quite confident that our Minister of Agriculture will realize that with this appointment and with this bill he also has an obligation now to the consumers of British Columbia. Therefore I would gently remind him that there are a lot of consumers in the world, and it just boils down to good will. Believe me, I look at the Minister and I am quite sure that he will do the right thing, because he is a very dedicated and fine Minister.

It's impossible to find wording; it still boils down to his judgment of directors. I would like to impress on

[ Page 4768 ]

him that of these directors at least half of them should be consumer-oriented.

The Liberals proposed an amendment on section 2 which....

Mr. Chairman: We're dealing with section 3.

Mr. Cummings: I was just going to touch on it. I could not vote for it as it was ridiculous. You'll remember, Mr. Chairman, that these directors had to have research, because when you look at a claim of a group of producers, they say it costs so much to produce, for example, eggs. You need research people to delve into this and find out if it's the truth, because after a while with almost any monopoly, which these boards are.... Let's face one simple fact: they are a straight monopoly. They are necessary, because under the free enterprise system the farmer has to have protection.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): The Premier will get to you when he gets back.

Mr. Cummings: I'm afraid you don't even listen. You haven't even got a clue, and for 26 votes I have to be inflicted for two more years.

Right now I'm making a plea to the Minister of Agriculture. I'm sure he will bear in mind the fact that he now bears a responsibility, with this Act, to consumers. Thank you.

Mr. Phillips: That was a real sideways shuffle we saw just a moment ago because I remember when we were voting on an amendment to hoist this bill for six months, the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain voted with the opposition because he was concerned at that time that there was nothing in the bill that would guarantee that it would be fairly represented by the consumers of the province.

He voted with us at that particular time and went outside the Legislature and said to the press that he voted with the opposition because there's nothing in this bill that guarantees that consumers in the province shall be fairly represented on this superboard.

Now, after listening to the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, I went out and got this amendment together to ensure that the concerns of the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain would be looked after. It was because of his concern in drawing it to my attention that this amendment is here.

An Hon. Member: You would never have thought about it.

Mr. Phillips: I wouldn't even have thought about it, because I had faith in the Minister. Now I bring the amendment in and the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain is going to vote against the amendment about which he said less than two weeks ago that he was concerned. Well, I'll tell you, if that isn't a sideways double-shuffle, I've never seen one.

Now the party Whip has gone to China, and the Premier's gone to China, and they won't be back for a while. I'm sure....

Mr. Chairman: Are you voting for or against the amendment?

Mr. Phillips: I'm speaking for the amendment, yes.

Mr. Chairman: Please go on with the amendment.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have got my point across.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, there are two possible reasons for supporting this amendment. One of them is political gamesmanship, and I'm not suggesting that anybody who took part in the debate, or who's going to vote is using it. I'm just saying that that is one possible reason for proposing such an amendment.

The second reason is a firm belief that the amendment proposed would actually make the proposed marketing board work better. Now, that's the one I'm going to speak to. I'm not going to deal with the first one at all.

It's my firm belief that it would not make the British Columbia Marketing Board work better. Because I have that belief, the government is not going to support this amendment.

The Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) raised the very reason why there has to be a separate board, when in talking about the concern of the consumers, and suggesting that the consumers in trying to make a case, for example, against a price setting — a particular price that's being set — he said they might want to even employ some outside economists.

The difficulty is: if we were dealing only with the marketing board on which those who are consumer oriented were in the minorit....and that was the first amendment to section 2, that we dealt with earlier. I'm bringing this up now to support the principle that there should be a separate marketing board with overall authority. In supporting that, the consumer-oriented people would be in the minority, and in trying to persuade the total marketing board that something should happen, that certain people should be employed to investigate something, they could be very easily, and often would be, out-voted, as has been their problem in the organization that I

[ Page 4769 ]

mentioned earlier.

So, for that reason I feel there has to be the British Columbia marketing board that is proposed here.

With respect to the naming of the members of the board itself — and reference has been made to the fact that in naming another board, that is Can-Cel — we did not follow the suggestions included in this amendment. I think we have to look at why certain board members are chosen.

In the case of Can-Cel, we were looking for people who could successfully — and I think they have shown they can — run a forest corporation. If we had to go outside of the province, to find the best people available for that job, I think our responsibility to the people in the province was to find those people wherever they might be.

Then when we came to appointing the Land Commission, we were looking for people with particular knowledge of the Province of British Columbia, who would represent all of the resource users, if you like, and the people of the province. I think in selecting that commission, as we did in the case of Can-Cel, we chose an excellent commission. People who are able to handle a job, I think, better than any other five people in the province could have done.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Cabinet has not vetoed any of Lane's decisions, Lane — and I assume you refer to the Chairman of the British Columbia Lands Commission — has not made any decisions that the cabinet has vetoed. He doesn't make decisions.

The Land Commission does make decisions, and as the House knows, decisions of the commission were subject to, in some cases, approval or disapproval by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That was voted for when we dealt with the legislation.

In the case of the British Columbia marketing board, again we're looking for people who have particular knowledge of a particular situation. This will come up later in the debate, I appreciate, but we're going to get to the appeal section.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) isn't in his seat right now, but the point that he made that he had — I forget the word he used now — but he has faith in the present Minister of Agriculture. The same sentiments were expressed by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings).

Suggesting that there might be a change and then the producers might have some concern — can I just inform you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not speaking for myself in this debate, I'm speaking on behalf of the government — even if there was a change within the present government, this would not change government policy on this. So it's a matter of having faith in the administration.

I assume, since the Hon. Member for Oak Bay said that, that he was saying he trusted the present administration to do the best thing possible for the farmers and for....

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Yes, the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is raising the real question — that there might be a change in government.

Truly that is something that would concern the people of the province, and it would be very disastrous for the people of the province if there was a change in the administration. For example, if that group were to take their place on this side of the House again, it would be bad.

But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that we can't guard against that by changing this legislation. If we pass this legislation in its present form and it's working well, and everything is working well, and still there's some upset and another administration takes office, they can simply change this legislation and do away with all the good that had been done by making any amendments.

So there's no way of guarding against what you fear by simply changing this legislation that would stop any other party. We can't guard against it that way. The only way we can guard against it is to continue doing a good job of administering the affairs of the province, and hope that there will not be a change in the administration.

There are other reasons for not wanting to tie down in any way the personnel of this board at this time. I've said we want the best people for the job.

The legislation provides that there will be up to 10, but it doesn't say that 10 will be appointed. It is not government policy that there will be 10 appointed initially. It's government policy that there will be, perhaps, five appointed. There are appeal provisions included in the legislation later on and it is our policy now — and we'll gain experience as time goes on, and may change our position as time goes on in the light of experience — but it's our policy now that.... Again, from your reading of the legislation, you'll know that the members of the board are appointed for no certain time, but at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

It's our policy now that when appeals do arise, as appeals will arise, in order to deal with these people, the membership of the board will be completed to deal with a particular appeal situation. People will be named at that time who will be particularly knowledgeable in the situation that is being appealed.

That's one of the reasons, at least, that we don't want to nail ourselves down at this time to saying who shall or who shall not be on the board. We want

[ Page 4770 ]

to leave it the way it is.

The government will not accept the amendment.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'm compelled to intervene in this debate because of the totally erroneous argument put forward by the Minister of Agriculture.

He starts by saying that it really wouldn't make any difference if another administration took office, because, of course, they could change the law. Well, everybody knows that, but at least they come to the Legislature to change the law.

What this amendment does is put some limit on this and every other future government unless they come to the people's representatives and justify their desire for change of the legislation.

The argument that has been put forward is typical of the arrogance of the government which believes that Ministers should have total power in every area.

This amendment and the amendment previous to it are not major amendments, they're minor amendments in the sense that they limit in a minor way the total discretionary power which the Minister and the Cabinet has under section 7 of this particular Act. It's a minor limitation; it's a minor control. It is a minor protection for consumers and the producers as well.

To argue, as has been done, that, really, it doesn't matter what's in any legislation because you really can only trust the Minister, he's the only guy who counts at all, and that legislation becomes irrelevant because in the future it might be changed, is to totally miss the point of what a Legislature, what a parliament and what responsibility to a parliament and to the people's representatives is all about.

We do not elect every four years administrations to act totally unfettered for the period of their office. The object of having a Legislature and having sessions, and having legislation, and having bills is to get away from unfettered, ministerial discretion. Yet we have a Minister getting up here and saying that it really doesn't matter because we would change it if we wanted to change it, and any other administration would change if they wanted to change it, which just begs the question.

Why then have anything except one section in a bill, saying the Minister can do what he damn well pleases? That is essentially what the argument of the Minister leads to. Legislation is designed to put some sort of general framework to give citizens certain rights against the administration, against the marketing board, against the superboard, against whatever. To suggest that legislation is irrelevant is to simply miss what the whole thing is all about.

Obviously a government can bring in changes to legislation. Obviously if they persuade the Members of the Legislature to change the legislation, the legislation will be changed. But to put the argument back to front, as the Minister did, that it really doesn't matter whether there is any replacement of the government or whether there's a change of Minister because, after all, legislation can be changed in the future, so let's right now grant total discretionary powers to the government, is simply an absurd argument in favour of absolutism and absolute executive control. Surely what we need is legislation which defines, as we think it should define, the powers and the rights of citizens as well as of the board.

The amendment put forward previously was a modest one which we are amazed that the Minister for Consumer Services and the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Ms. Young) didn't support. This one is similar. It is a minor guarantee that one-third will be consumers on this particular board. We just cannot see why this also has not been supported by those great protectors of citizens' rights, the people who are constantly advertising government attempts to protect consumers on the radio. Yet, when it comes to a minor amendment, a minor fettering of the unlimited Ministerial discretion that this man wants, we find them tamely voting with the government. It just doesn't make any sense.

This type of amendment is a useful, positive contribution from the opposition, and they should be considered in that sense. We should not get arguments which are essentially the arguments of absolute, dictatorial control by cabinet.

Mr. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I rise to support this amendment, too. It is a relatively minor amendment but one which would enshrine a very important concept of fairness in this legislation. The federal Act, as I understand it, calls for 50 per cent of the members to be active producers. I just don't understand why the Minister couldn't accept the concept that at least a third be producers and a third of the people on the board be consumers.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: That's right. That still leaves lots of room for party hacks on the other third.

The Minister's comments about this amendment sounded like the old speech the Premier used to make about "trust us," and I haven't heard that for a long time. It is nice to see you still have those feelings.

The Minister's assurance that only the best people available will be chosen leaves something to be desired, even in consideration of the Can-Cel experience where we do have mostly Americans on that board. There is a fear by the opposition that the same thing will happen with regard to the super marketing board. In choosing the best people available, this government seems to go out of its way to choose people who do think the same way as the

[ Page 4771 ]

Minister thinks of the various responsibilities.

Just hark back to yesterday's question period when it was pointed out that the Minister Without Portfolio in charge of northern affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) had chosen his executive assistant because he was young and hardworking and an active party member. We're afraid that the same thing will happen with regard to the super marketing board.

It isn't necessary to go outside the province; it isn't necessary to look for other people other than active producers. The Minister also frightens me to some degree by the comments that he made on the radio when he was talking about this bill when it was first introduced, He said that we may appoint some producers to this marketing board. Well, really, what he was saying when he said that was, "We may not appoint some producers to this marketing board."

I think it is necessary that this be spelled out very carefully in legislation or I am quite sure that what we will get instead of a balanced proportion of people who are vitally concerned that this marketing board does the kind of job that apparently the government wants it to do is just another depository for party hacks and party workers. Certainly the board can never do any kind of a job if that is the case.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 21

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, when you report the proceedings of the committee to the Speaker, I trust that you will report that a division took place on the amendment to section 2 and request that it be recorded in the Journals.

On section 3.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, the Minister, in some of his remarks recently, noted the enormous monopoly powers that by this legislation we are giving to the board, and the need to provide countervailing forces against those powers and to control them. Indeed, much of the debate this morning has been concerned with exactly that — the control of tremendous monopoly powers by marketing boards.

One of the chief ways of controlling power of this kind is by information, by the public's right to know. Nowhere in this bill, Mr. Chairman, do I find the public's right to know about the details going into the decisions of marketing boards being anywhere here positively affirmed. This right of access to information is one of the chief conclusions of the Forbes report, of which we have heard much in this Legislature, and of which the Minister of Agriculture and others in the government opposite have spoken warmly.

I would hope that the Minister would find it congenial to reaffirm a policy that certainly the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has always said is a part of the philosophy of that party, the policy of sunshine — letting the sun shine in to the crevices and crannies of these marketing boards and finally open them up to public scrutiny.

That won't happen, Mr. Chairman, unless we make some legislative provision for it, because the practice hasn't been that way at all. The practice has been one of secrecy and of the public not having the right to know, in spite of the public having conferred upon these boards enormous powers.

It's a question of having to know about costs, as compared to selling prices. It's a question of having to know the exact figures about production capacity in whatever specific sector of the agricultural industry the board might control. It's a question of having to know about external competition and pressures, whether from other parts of Canada or from abroad.

Only with this kind of information, Mr. Chairman, can the public be certain, first of all, that the marketing boards themselves are doing their job and, secondly, that the B.C. Marketing Board, this regulatory or appeal mechanism, is doing its job properly.

Now we have here section 3, which sets up the constitution of the British Columbia Marketing Board. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is of tremendous importance that the constitution of that board should set forth affirmatively the public's right to know what is going on in that board.

Therefore I move an amendment to section 3 to add as subsection (7) the following words: "All proceedings and papers of the B.C. Marketing Board shall be open to public scrutiny."

Mr. Chairman: Do you have a copy of that amendment to send up here? I don't see it on the order paper.

[ Page 4772 ]

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I just simply want to add very briefly our strongest support for this concept. Once again it is a philosophy which has been espoused by this government that the people are entitled to know the people's business, and nothing can affect the people more intimately than the sale price of essential market commodities, essentially food. If these boards are to have the kind of powers, which indeed they do and which we will be discussing later under other sections, then it seems to me nothing less than reasonable that we should have the assurance in the legislation that all the documentation, the papers and the correspondence, should be available.

If we are going to disclose in this House about each one of us and what our private affairs are and our involvement in the marketplace and so on, I think it is equally as important that the affairs of these marketing boards should be completely accessible to the public. The public should have complete access to this information.

I support this amendment very strongly.

Mr. Phillips: I rise to support the amendment because, as has been previously stated — and I don't want to be repetitious — everybody in this province is a consumer. This is a superboard set up by the Minister of Agriculture to evidently — although in not accepting this motion to have consumers on this board, or at least a third of them, I doubt.... But evidently the purpose of the whole bill is to protect the consumers of this province and to give to the producers of this province some benefits which they have not been receiving.

This is public business, and it is an area where the Minister is going to have complete control to appoint anybody he sees fit to the board, complete control to look after the marketing and the distribution and the production of all foodstuffs in this province.

Now we had a case in point, Mr. Chairman, last spring. We have a government Crown corporation called Ocean Falls, and this Legislature couldn't even have access to the contract whereby they sell the production from that mill. We found out that it was being sold at giveaway prices to a group in the United States of America, who were reselling it for a fantastic rip-off profit to countries of the Third World.

Now we don't want to see the same thing perpetuated by the superboard. The minutes of any group or organization — this Legislature — are wide open to public scrutiny, and so should be the marketing boards. Therefore I am definitely supporting this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the government is not accepting this amendment. The effect sometimes of trying to make everything public is that what you do is hide everything. What you are saying is that anybody who is not prepared to have every presentation they are making, every letter that they are writing...if they are not prepared to make that public, then they have no way in which they can communicate at all with the British Columbia Marketing Board.

What we have provided in a later section is that appeals shall be public — open to the public — in that all of the material relative to the appeal can be presented by either side. They can bring on anything they want to public appeal. Anybody taking part in that appeal can bring out anything they want. But any other material that the board may come across in any way at all, we think, is a matter between the board and the people or person raising that material as to whether or not that person or the board at the time want — to make that particular bit of material public.

We feel we have gone a long way in saying that all of the appeals, and anything to do with the appeals, that want to be raised by anybody, shall be open to the public. We will not accept this amendment.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, as the principles behind this bill become unfolded bit by bit, as the Minister declares government intent, it becomes more and more ominous for the people of British Columbia.

We learned at our session last spring what a dirty business controlled marketing can be. We learned this as a result of secret dealings between the Egg Marketing Board and some of the producers in British Columbia. We learned what a dirty business it was when the Premier of the province called in members of the Egg Marketing Board, threatened to kick the censored out of them, and dismissed them to a hotel room to sign a secret pact which was agreed to only after the Minister himself exerted a heavy hand over the terms.

Earlier today we voted down an amendment that would have guaranteed non-partisan consumer representation on the boards. Remember, Mr. Chairman, what the purpose, what the real purpose, of these boards is. The purpose is to keep prices high, to eliminate competition and to control production.

The consequence will be guaranteed incomes for some, unfairness in permission being granted to people to make those incomes, just as there was with egg marketing. Profits went to those in the Fraser Valley; northern producers were denied. Also there will be under-the-table profits as quotas for production get higher and higher black market values.

These are the seamy consequences of controlled production and controlled marketing. We don't have to use our imagination to recognize these consequences. They're all before us and they have all been debated in this House.

[ Page 4773 ]

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) is only bringing forward some common sense. As a matter of fact, it will keep the Minister and the government out of trouble if it's accepted.

Enormous powers are given to these marketing boards: powers to disturb the marketplace; powers that inevitably lead to the seamy sorts of things I've been describing.

The Minister has denied one obvious protection: the kind of protection that he and his colleagues, when they were in opposition, continually demanded — consumer representation. You couldn't have hospital boards run by doctors and hospital administrators; you had to have the consumer there. Do you remember that? Do you remember all the debates the NDP Members gave us on that point? We didn't disagree; we only offered mild objections when these non-partisan people turned out to be party hacks.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Only mild objections.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: We drew attention to it; that's fair.

Mrs. Jordan: Name one on a hospital board.

MR. McGeer: Party hacks?

Mrs. Jordan: Yes.

Mr. McGeer: Liberal Party hacks? There aren't such things. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Are you calling a senator a party hack? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Shame on you!

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Certainly you can't call senators party hacks, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Jordan: High-class or low-class?

Mr. McGeer: Members of boards, yes. (Laughter.)

No, there are high-class party hacks and there are low-class party hacks. (Laughter.) I don't want to see that again. (Laughter.)

But we're all doing this for the people, not for party hacks, Mr. Chairman. And I wouldn't want to distort the principles that are involved here.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I hope this discussion can get back to the amendment.

Mr. McGeer: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) — I'm sorry that he's gone to China today. I wouldn't be sorry if he went to China some other day, but today I'm sorry, because I know, Mr. Chairman, that if the Attorney-General were here he'd be supporting that amendment.

The reason is that when he sat in that very chair, he made continual speeches decrying Star Chamber tactics — Star Chamber tactics. Yes, he did — the kind of decisions that went on in communist countries like Russia and China, where decisions are made behind closed doors and the public was never told.

Mr. Phillips: He's gone over to get some more lessons.

Mr. McGeer: And to think that the very day he is going to one of those countries that practise Star Chamber tactics we should be indulging in it here in British Columbia.

I can hardly believe the irony of it but I can certainly remember the fervour of the Attorney-General's speeches. I know he was against Star Chamber tactics. Now it may change; he's been studying right here in this chamber the sayings of Chairman Mao. He was doing that the other night. Perhaps the Attorney-General's sentiments have changed, but he made a great impression on me, Mr. Chairman, when he was in opposition, because he stood for the very thing that the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano stands for today: public disclosure of public business.

Who's against that, Mr. Chairman? The government's against that, yes. The Minister just stated that that was government policy. He did that, Mr. Chairman, just in case one or two of the backbenchers somehow got the idea that government should be in favour of public disclosure of public business. That's a dangerous idea for backbenchers to harbour, and the Minister didn't want them to have the wrong impression. He put it on the record.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that I agree with the Minister about that. I think public business should be a matter of public record. That's why I'm supporting this amendment by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. It's a test of principle, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, a test of who believes in public disclosure of public business, and who believes in Star Chamber tactics.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

[ Page 4774 ]

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: The last Member to do that was a Social Creditor, who sat in that very chair. I think he got upset that day by some of the opposition's speeches.

In any event, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), I think, has spoken very well in this debate. He's spoken briefly and he's spoken to the point. He doesn't always do that. But certainly I agree with him on this occasion, and I think all Members who believe in public disclosure of public business will support the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I want only to say that I do not consider the Minister's explanation a sufficient answer to the need for this amendment.

Subsection 6 of section 10 which provides that: "...every appeal under this section shall be open to the public" says nothing about papers and documents, which are essential to the understanding of marketing boards.

He states that persons could not feel free to communicate with this board. Mr. Chairman, this is an appeal board; the documents relating to appeals. This is only proper.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, this board will do staff studies of all kinds relating to the agricultural industry in British Columbia and the marketing boards. These are studies essential to the formulation of public policy paid for by public funds.

The government and this board will suppress those that are inconvenient to it, and only allow to see the light of day those which coincide with its policy. These are paid for with public funds and the public has a right to them, Mr. Chairman. This is public information.

The refusal to accept this amendment is just another cover-up by a cover-up government.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the Member seems to forget that there was an election over two years ago. Since this government has been in office we have made a practice of releasing reports when they become available...

An Hon. Member: What about the Ocean Falls contract?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: ...and it's our policy to continue.

You remember the Carruthers report that was buried for 20 years? We found it; we made it public and we've made other reports public as we get them.

An Hon. Member: What about the Ocean Falls contract?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 21

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

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 17

On section 4.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, section 4 deals with cooperation of the provincial board and any federal board. It says that the provincial board and every marketing board and commission may cooperate with the federal board.

The Minister last night pledged that there would be cooperation between federal boards and the provincial board. I don't have Hansard here and I can't recall his exact words, but he definitely left me

[ Page 4775 ]

with the impression that it was the intention of these provincial agencies to get along with whatever companion federal agencies might be established in order that this whole business of controlling production and prices and so on could be done in an orderly fashion.

But, Mr. Chairman, the Minister, as he had said on other occasions, doesn't control these boards. They're basically producer boards. They are supposed to be independent of government, though we know from the Sy Kovachich case that they aren't always independent of government. They're supposed to be.

If they really are independent, then there would be no obligation of those boards to follow the policies of the Minister or the wishes of the Minister in cooperating with federal boards or agencies. It's quite possible that the producers could nominate stubborn people who have their own ideas and were genuinely independent not only in the provincial government but in the federal government.

It might be their position, for example, to seize eggs, just to take one hypothetical situation. Suppose another province decided to dump their surplus eggs in British Columbia — just hypothetical — I'm not trying to be specific about anything, but it is possible that surplus eggs might be.... It's possible that a provincial board could attempt to seize those eggs. Remote as it may seem, something like that could conceivably happen.

It's also possible that something like that could be done in defiance of a federal egg marketing board. I'm not saying that it would happen. I know a lot of people here, particularly in terms of what the Minister said, would regard as a ridiculous suggestion. But, Mr. Chairman, it is possible something like that could happen, and therefore, I think this legislation should not be just permissive in the matter of cooperation, but they should be obliged to cooperate just to guard against this very remote possibility that something like I suggested might ever happen.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that in section 4 the word on the first line, "may", be changed to "shall". Just for the benefit of all the Members, I apologize for not giving notice of this amendment, but it's really a very small one and a very simple one — it's easy to understand.

If this amendment were to pass, Mr. Chairman, section 4 would say:

"The provincial board in every marketing board or commission 'shall' cooperate with the federal board to regulate the marketing of any natural product in the Province and may act conjointly with the Federal Board, and may perform such functions and duties and exercise such powers as are prescribed by this Act or the regulations."

The obligatory part is only in the first line saying that: "The Provincial board and every marketing board or commission 'shall' cooperate with the Federal Board...."

What is does, Mr. Chairman, is to embody the suggestion of the Minister himself, in saying that there would be co-operation, into law to be certain that these independent boards don't vary from the express wishes of the government. I'm sure the Minister will accept it and I'm very pleased to offer this helpful little amendment that follows through with his policy.

Mr. Chairman: We are on the amendment proposed by the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the government is not prepared to accept this amendment either, because we don't think it will in anyway at all improve the legislation, and what we want is good legislation.

When any marketing board in any province is considering entering into an agreement with other marketing boards, between the marketing boards in total and the national or federal marketing board, there is a considerable amount of negotiating going on. Now, if our marketing board went into those negotiations with legislation that required them to cooperate, then, of course, they're going in there knowing that whatever comes out of the agreement reached among nine other provinces, and between those nine provinces and the federal, whatever came out of that the B.C. board would be obliged to go along with it because the legislation said they would have to.

So we're prepared to leave it as it is, which allows the provincial board full opportunity to negotiate and to get the best agreement possible on behalf of everyone concerned.

Mr. McGeer: I take it from what the Minister said that this is a little different point of view than the Minister put on the record last night. I gather what he's saying is that a provincial board may not cooperate with a federal board. Well, it may be that nothing's wrong with that, but I think we're heading down a dangerous path. That path is putting on initial controls, then putting on controls on controls, and finally engaging, as it seems to me we are committed not to do, in interprovincial warfare.

If memory serves me right, we've already commenced on that. I think it's regrettable. Indeed, I think it's essential that if we do embark on controls we make these so broad in scope across the nation that we don't engage in any more divisive interprovincial acts than we've engaged in so far. That's why I believe it would be most unfortunate if we condone in any way, through controls introduced

[ Page 4776 ]

in this Legislature, an invitation of British Columbia to commence that kind of action. It's why I asked the Minister last night what the situation was with regard to parallel legislation across Canada, and the situation with regard to federal legislation.

We are starting to get ourselves into trouble, Mr. Chairman, and I think we should recognize it right now.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, based on the Minister's remarks, I'm just wondering if he understood the exact thrust of the amendment by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

The requirement is on cooperation. The suggestion of conjoint action in line 3 of the clause remains permissive: "that the provincial board 'may' act conjointly with the federal board," but it's not required to do so. What it is required to do is to cooperate, which means to have a harmonious relationship with and do the best to work out with, as I would read that word. It seems to me that a board should do that.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Once agreement has been reached, then it is "shall" cooperate, because they are legally bound to cooperate. And right now there is some question as to whether some provinces are cooperating properly with CEMA. It's quite possible that if, as seems to be the case, it is found out that certain provinces are not cooperating in the way that they had agreed to do, then legal action will be taken against them.

So once we reach agreement, and I feel that we have to leave every door open for the producers to arrive at a reasonable agreement, the marketing boards, then the rest of the amendment is not necessary at all because they do have to cooperate when they sign the agreement.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5

NAYS — 32

Mr. McGeer: When you report to the Speaker, would you inform him that a vote took place on this section and note that the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) was stuck in the revolving door? (Laughter.)

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): I was looking for Shuswap.

Mr. Chairman: I think we'll have to leave out the revolving door part.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, just a brief question.

This section seems to turn over a lot of the rights of the provincial marketing boards to the federal government. I wonder what the intention of this section is. Could the Minister briefly explain it and could he tell us whether or not there are moves afoot to move into more national marketing board situations given the fiasco that we have with the Canadian Egg Marketing Association and the Turkey Marketing Board which are both in a shambles? I would think that the province would want to move pretty slowly before we move into any more situations like that. Perhaps the Minister could explain.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I agree with the Member that any other boards entering into agreements on the national level would certainly want to move slowly. This is copied entirely out of the previous legislation. It's permissive, and, frankly, why it was felt to be necessary when our legislation was originally drafted in 1948 I am not aware. There has been no attempt on the part of the federal authorities to move in to any of the fields that are occupied in any way by its provincial marketing board, and I can't imagine that there would be. Beyond that, I don't have any explanation.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

Mr. Gibson: Section 7 is easily the most disgraceful and dangerous in this bill.

This is the section where we in the Legislature are asked to delegate all of our powers in a very broad spectrum to the cabinet for a further redelegation by the cabinet at the stroke of a pen as and when it sees

[ Page 4777 ]

fit in a very wide range of activity in British Columbia. Read part of the enabling sentence:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations and may vest in the provincial board or any marketing board or commission such authorities and powers as considered necessary or advisable with reference to the marketing of any natural product....”

And so on.

"...such authorities and powers as considered necessary or advisable...." No hindrance or stay-put upon that at all, Mr. Chairman. There's no reason why the government couldn't by order-in-council, if it saw fit, pass an order calling for the slaughter of all black-and-white cows in the Province of British Columbia or pass an order-in-council saying that milk could only be delivered to people over the age of six years. It could pass an order to do any silly or dangerous thing that the government wanted.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the delegation of that kind of power without some control over it is a very wrong thing. It's something that we in this Legislature should not agree to.

We should have, perhaps, a general committee in this House on statutory instruments to review them and to see how the government is making use of the power that is delegated to it. But we don't have such a committee. So, at least in respect of this particular very bad example of the delegation of powers, I want to provide some control over it. I will do so by moving the addition of section 7(3) to read as follows:

"Any regulations passed under this Act shall be interim in force only unless and until confirmed within 30 days by the Legislative Assembly, if then sitting, or within 30 days of the commencement of the next sitting."

Mr. Chairman: I declare that the amendment is out of order. It's negative. If you wish to vote against the section you can do so.

Mr. Gibson: On a point of order, I'd like to speak to that for just a moment. What this amendment proposes to do is to....

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: I'm speaking on a point of order, Hon. Member, to the Chairman's ruling. I am suggesting that what this amendment proposes to do is to restrict the power, the unbridled power of the government, in making regulations. In other words, it's not negative; it's restrictive.

As May makes quite clear, restrictive amendments are what amendments in committee are all about. I'll find a reference for you if you give me a minute.

Mr. Chairman: We interpret it to be negative to the section and therefore out of order. I'm not going to listen to an argument on that. You can challenge the ruling if you like.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, what kind of a procedure...?

Mr. Chairman: You've made your point of order. We've checked it and double-checked it. We're ruling that it's out of order.

Mr. GIBSON: Well, I most certainly appeal that ruling.

Mr. Smith: The Hon. Member is entitled to quote his reference.

Mr. Chairman: I have listened to the point of order and I have made the ruling and it has been challenged.

An Hon. Member: Ha! Talk about closure!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, in committee dealing with section 7, I ruled that a proposed amendment was out of order and my ruling has been appealed.

Mr. Speaker: The question is, shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division.

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 17

[ Page 4778 ]

The House in committee on Bill 165; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

Mr. McClelland: With respect to the appeal section of this Act, I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. First of all, I noticed the Minister said earlier that he didn't expect there would be very many appeals to any orders made by the various boards, but I would like to take some exception to that because I think that once the avenue is open there will be appeals and there will be lots of appeals.

It seems to me that many of the marketing boards are going to find themselves or one of their representatives before this appeal board a great deal of the time, and I would expect that each of the boards will now have to hire legal council on a practically full-time basis.

I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, who will pay for these additional costs? Will the marketing boards themselves have to incur these costs? Will the provincial board pick up some of the cost?

I think it is an important question because if it becomes a repetitious procedure, then, Mr. Chairman, the marketing boards could find themselves bankrupt in a very short time and then we would be left with only the provincial superboard and perhaps that is even the method behind this Act, I really don't know.

But I would like to know whether there will be a procedure made for some kind of a fund, and whether or not there will be some kind of guarantee written into the regulations, Mr. Chairman, that the cost of these appeals won't be added on to the consumer cost of the various products which are involved.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: There have been several instances in the past where marketing boards have had to carry legal battles, I suppose under the previous administration and under the present one. Where the government of the day has felt that it is in the interests of the legislation itself that the court cases be proceeded with, arrangements have been made to share the cost.

Now, with respect to your question, I can only say that it would depend upon the circumstances of the total situation. If a particular marketing board found it was being plagued with a lot of appeals and that it was a challenge of the very system of orderly marketing itself that was being engaged upon, then likely that marketing board would appeal to government for some financial assistance in meeting these legal challenges.

I did say that I didn't expect there would be that many appeals. I expect that as people become more aware of the operation of marketing boards and the reasons for what they are doing, that there will be less and less. But I think I can't answer it any more explicitly than that at this time.

Mr. McClelland: Subsection (9) is, I think very sloppily draughted where it says that an appeal may be made to an appeal board consisting of all available members of the provincial board who did not actively participate in the consideration of the making of the order appealed from. This is section 10(9), Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that if a board has been operating for some time and if it is five members, as you have indicated it might be, and they've been working together for six months or eight months or a year, or whatever, a group of people like that tends to develop like attitudes. Certainly they get to know each others' thought processes, and it is a bit of a danger in any kind of a group of persons like this.

I would think that if three members of the board overturned an appeal, it's very unlikely that those other two members — who may have happened to be on vacation in Hawaii or someplace — it's very unlikely that those other two members, and maybe an additional member appointed by the government, would have very much of a different avenue of approach from the regular appeal board.

Then in subsection 10, Mr. Chairman, the Act goes on to say that where there are less than three members of the provincial board qualified, in accordance with subsection 9, the cabinet shall appoint additional members to the appeal board so as to ensure at least three members hear the appeal. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that that would happen most of the time, because there would obviously be three of those five members always at a board meeting hearing appeals, or at least we would hope so.

I'd just like to advance the thought to the Minister that if there were, for instance, 10 appeals pending at any one time, and there is a time limit of 30 days, unless otherwise ordered by the board, that would be an additional 30 people — 30 more people that may have to be appointed at one time — to hear appeals from the appeal board. I think we're just piling cost upon cost upon cost. I still say, Mr. Chairman, that these costs can't be borne by anybody but the consumer.

Certainly it's a very cumbersome appeal process. It might have made a lot more sense, Mr. Chairman, just to have said that there will be within the Department of Agriculture perhaps, as there is now, a three-member marketing board situated within the department. It would have been a lot more simple for me to say: "There shall be an appeal board, consisting

[ Page 4779 ]

of a certain number of members and the Minister" or something like that. But this is very cumbersome, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it's going to become very costly as well.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, we couldn't get into the situation where there would be as many as 30 people acting on the board at the same time, because the maximum according to the legislation is 10. If we got to the point where there were too many appeals for the 10 to deal with, then it would simply mean that the marketing board would have to otherwise order that the date be longer than 30 days before the appeal was heard. So there couldn't be any more than 10 serving at the same time. But as I did indicate earlier, depending on the nature of the appeal, the members on the board might change. Some of them might be appointed for a relatively short period to deal with a particular situation.

There are several ways of handling the appeal, that's true. One of the interim draughts suggested that they would be handled by the Supreme Court of Canada — or court of appeal, rather. That was considered. We decided that we would try it this way and see how it works and it would be the actual board itself that would hear the appeal. We would not appoint the full number. We would add to it to deal with the appeal. Now, in light of experience, it might well be that we will be recommending to another sitting of the Legislature that there should be some changes.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for indicating that he would consider changes if it becomes necessary. But the comments that only 10 people can sit on the board.... That would seem to be negated by subsection 10, because subsection 10 gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council full right to appoint, I would think, as many people as it feels necessary, and there could be a number more than 10 serving.

But even if I'm interpreting that section incorrectly, and then the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has to vary the times in which an appeal must be made, we're getting into an even worse situation, Mr. Chairman, because we're going to see, if there are a number of appeals pending, that those appeals will have to be sent back farther and farther and farther, and any marketing board, for instance, which attempts to take advantage of the fluctuating market in an emergency will then have that emergency negated because of the tendency on the part of the government to set back those time limits. So we may be, instead of waiting 30 days, maybe waiting 60 days, 90 days, six months, to have orders from these appeals heard.

The other question that comes to mind is: what happens, Mr. Chairman, to these orders once an appeal is made? If a marketing board, for instance, initiates an order and an appeal is made, is that order suspended until the appeal is heard? If so, then perhaps that order will have to be suspended for many months if a backlog of appeals comes up.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to appeal very strongly to the Minister of Agriculture to take another look at this whole section to see if the appeal procedures can't be streamlined and guarantees built in so that orders of the board or appeals can be heard as quickly as possible so that the orderly marketing situation doesn't completely break down.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the Member has asked me to take another look at this. In that it will not be long before the Legislature will be in a new session — we're well into November now — I can promise that we will be looking at that, because there have been representations about the appeal section — different suggestions. There's not one that I can grab on and say, well, I prefer this to what is presented in the bill that is before us now.

So with that, I'd like to ask the House to accept the appeal section as it is here, with the undertaking that this will be reviewed in the time between now and the next session.

Mr. McClelland: What will happen to orders that are appealed?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: It will vary with the orders. For example, if it is a pricing order, I would think that in that situation the marketing board would say: "Well, that order is suspended until we've had time to hear the appeal." There may be other orders allocating quota, for example, that might be suspended or might not. I think it would depend on the order.

The marketing board has the authority to suspend them and then hear the appeal, or to hear the appeal and then deal with the....

Mr. McClelland: But will the marketing board be obliged to suspend those orders?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The provincial marketing board?

Mr. McClelland: Well, the....

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The provincial marketing board would have the authority, depending on the particular order. In its judgment it would either suspend or let the order be operative until after the appeal had been heard.

Mr. McClelland: Won't there be problems

[ Page 4780 ]

arising if the appeal procedure backs up?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister if he wouldn't recognize that there could be some serious problems arise with regard to the variance of orders and the suspension of orders if the appeal procedure does develop into a backlog situation.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I think that's one of the considerations that the marketing board would have in mind in deciding whether to suspend or whether to allow an order to stand until the appeal had been heard.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the Minister exactly what this is: "A marketing board may, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — sub section 3 — "purchase or otherwise acquire, hold, and dispose of real property." Does this mean that the marketing board — the superboard — will have the power to actually build and own processing plants, or is this clause in there just for them to acquire real estate for the purpose of an office building? Or are they going to go into the cattle business, such as the Land Commission has done, by buying ranches and going into the direct production of foodstuffs? Is the marketing board with this power planning on going into the poultry production? Are they planning on taking over the alfalfa-cubing plant? What is the purpose of this section? Why are they given this particular power?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I suppose, because the names are so dissimilar, I think there was some confusion in the remarks of the Member for South Peace River. At one time he was talking about the superboard and another time about the marketing board.

The marketing boards under this section are marketing boards to deal with a particular commodity. This is not the section dealing with the provincial board.

Now the marketing boards already have this authority. It gives them the authority — the opportunity, if you like — to take advantage of using federal money that's available for storage facilities. But many of the marketing boards do own those kinds of facilities. All we're doing here is continuing that authority.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

Mr. McClelland: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister a question, and I must refer to another section in asking this question. Am I correct that section 14, dealing with marketing commissions, specifically mentions processing, and yet this section, section 12, dealing with marketing boards specifically leaves out processing? Is it the intention of the Minister not to allow marketing boards to get into the processing of their own commodities, while the marketing commission may?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the question might more properly be: why do we bother saying "processing" in section 14? I've asked the legislative counsel the same question that you just put to me. I'm told that the word "producing" can be extended so that it's not simply the primary producer. But if the primary producers of a particular product want to carry it one stage further in their marketing board organization, then using the word "production" does not rule out the possibility of them carrying on to processing at some stage.

So when we say in commissions that they can process, we're being redundant.

Mr. McClelland: Well, Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it make some sense, then, not to be redundant in the Act? It's certainly open to some dispute. Why doesn't the Minister put in an amendment to change that redundancy? It would make things a lot more simple and certainly make the Act more efficient and businesslike.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, in that the House has been good enough to have gone along with the wording up to this point right through to section 12, I can't see any reason, in view of my explanation, for changing any of the words in this point.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

An Hon. Member: That's crazy.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, the arguments for caution here are getting more and more compelling as the Minister runs out of excuses to defend what ultimately will prove to be a bad bill.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: That's what you said about Bill 42.

Mr. McGeer: Look at the difference between what that Minister first introduced and finally what he settled for.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: How do you feel about Bill 9?

[ Page 4781 ]

Mr. McGeer: They were completely different bills.

The Minister would do well to listen early to what some of his helpful critics have to say, instead of listening late as he did with Bill 42. Actually, in the end the Minister did a bad job in Bill 42 because he withdrew too far under fire.

Mr. Chairman, when we discussed this bill in second reading you will no doubt recall that there were some disagreements between the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), the Speaker and some Members on this side of the House, notably myself as the Liberal leader, and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), as to whether or not discussion of this bill in all its ramifications were sub judice.

We offered the opinion, which the Speaker rejected, that this bill in no way.... The Speaker's position was that the bill in no way interfered with the court case between the Egg Marketing Board and Mr. Sy Kovachich.

We stood on May the parliamentary guide, which stated that if the bill has the effect, or can have the effect, of changing the circumstances of a court case, then it is appropriate that all the ramifications be discussed in the Legislature. To do otherwise would deny proper debate on a bill, as well as to be tantamount to interference with free speech.

Subsection 2 of this particular section quite clearly can have the effect of interfering with that court case. May I read to you? According to subsection 2:

"The Provincial board may, at any time, amend, vary or cancel any order, rule, or regulation made, before or after the date this Act comes into force...."

"Before or after", Mr. Chairman, "before or after the date this Act comes into force." We can only conclude that it is the intention of the government to take such action now as to change the effect of the decision of the Egg Marketing Board which got the government into such problems because it chose to defend one of its party Members and supporters, Mr. Sy Kovachich.

Now, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said it is definitely out of order. What's out of order, Mr. Member, is the bill.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: What's out of order is the bill, because the bill, if you will read section 12(2), says that this new board may change any order, rule or regulation before or after the date this Act is passed.

In other words, contrary to the position taken by Mr. Speaker in second reading of this bill, it clearly is retroactive legislation. I can only conclude from the attempts the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce made to stifle debate on this bill that it was his intention, and the intention of the government, specifically to change the circumstances surrounding the Sy Kovachich case in order to snuff out any continuing embarrassment this sorry affair has brought to that Minister, to the Premier and to his government.

Now it may be, Mr. Chairman, that my suspicions are ill-founded. It may be that I've been in opposition so long, watched so many things that have slipped through this House be later turned against the public for the advantage of the government, that I've become hypersensitive.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Yes, like the Minister of Transport and B.C. Rail.

I don't want to get into something sub judice, but there was a very interesting little item in the paper today about suits between the B.C. Railway and one of the contractors that the Minister tried to defend through the then executive vice-president of the B.C. Railway before a hearing in the House.

I only mention this, Mr. Chairman, because it was another instance where something just slipped by. And it may be I'm hypersensitive. If that is the case, if it really wasn't the intention of the government to do what I suggested, then, of course, they will want to make certain that there are no retroactive provisions in this Act.

So in order to give the government an opportunity to prove that I'm hypersensitive and even a fool about this, I'm suggesting...in fact, I'm moving the following amendment to section 12(2): to delete the words "before or", which appear in line 2 of subsection 2, so the subsection will say: "The provincial board may at any time amend, vary or cancel any order, rule or regulation made, after the date this Act comes into force."

It merely takes away the power to pass retroactive rules or regulations. Of course, this would make it impossible to fiddle with the Sy Kovachich case and it would be established that what I said here is wrong.

On the other hand, if the government rejects this amendment and wishes to keep the retroactive provision in this legislation, then I think it will make it perfectly clear that it is the intent to interfere with this, or any other situations that have cropped up with the Egg Marketing Board that might lead to political ramifications.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The Member, of course, will draw whatever inferences he chooses to from this section, and will probably vote according to his own suspicions. But there are reasons why the government cannot accept this amendment.

There are orders other than the one that seems to be uppermost in the minds, up to this point at least,

[ Page 4782 ]

of the leader of the Liberal group, and to quite an extent in the minds of all of them, I suppose — one particular order, or orders, associated with a particular case. But there are many other orders that marketing boards have passed recently, and may pass before this particular bill becomes law, which the provincial marketing board may want to interfere with.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You are defying the Speaker's ruling in second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: For example, Mr. Chairman, very recently the egg board, for reasons best known to itself and reasons that were not explained to me, decided that the producers in the Fraser Valley, who up to that point were marketing 80 per cent of the quota they were entitled to market .... Very recently this was changed by order so that they could market 100 per cent, technically. That makes quite a difference to some of the producers in the valley, and makes a difference to the producers in the rest of the province too.

Now, the marketing board might very well want to look at that order and wonder at the timing of it. There may be an explanation, I don't know, I haven't heard it, I haven't had an opportunity yet to ask the question even. But an order like that could very well be examined into by the marketing board.

There are other orders that have to do with determining the quantity of chicken being produced at a time, for example, when we have near record supplies of all poultry meats in storage. But there are orders from time to time that are issued that have to deal with just how much chicken will be produced.

It's quite possible that there are orders already in effect or that may be passed between now and the time this bill becomes law, as I hope it will soon, that the marketing board may wish to interfere with on the grounds that it is bad for the industry in total and for consumers to have storage building up that somebody is paying for. So, we require this retroactive provision, if you like, to deal with orders such as those.

Certainly the government has no intention of dealing with the one order or orders associated with the particular case that, as I say, is uppermost in the minds of some people in the House. But we do require the legislation to be able to look at other orders that have been passed or may be passed between now and the day the bill becomes law.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the Minister?

When the Speaker offered his opinion that there was no retroactive aspect to this legislation and asked for opinions from the Members of the House about this, we said there were. The Speaker, in effect, said there weren't. And the Minister who was sitting there in the House at that time sat silent. He didn't say one word during second reading, Mr. Chairman, to refute the opinion of the Speaker or to offer him any help.

Now he stands up when we have an amendment on this section before committee in the House, after second reading has passed, and freely admits that there were retroactive aspects to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, what do you think of a Minister who does that kind of thing? The Speaker passes down a ruling on second reading of this bill, based on the fact that there is no retroactivity to this legislation. The Minister, knowing perfectly well that there is, sits silent in this House. Then that vote having passed and come to committee, he has the gall to stand up here and admit to the Legislature and to the public that there were retroactive aspects to that bill.

It's disgraceful for a Minister of the Crown to do that kind of thing. It's openly deceiving the House Mr. Minister, and that's what this Minister is guilty of.

Mr. Chairman: I don't think that kind of debate is relevant to the amendment.

Mr. McGeer: Relevant! It's relevant to the whole process of democracy, Mr. Chairman. Can't you see that? You're going to have a Minister slipping something by the House one moment in order to get a vote favourable to him, and then admitting at the next turn that by his silence he was deceiving the House. Nobody knew better than the Minister what the meaning of his legislation was.

Mr. Chairman: Order! We're not here to rule in this committee....

Mr. McGeer: I don't believe the Speaker was.... I believe the Speaker didn't realize the implications of that bill. But the Minister did, and he sat silent! It's disgraceful, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, it's my responsibility at the moment to explain section 12 and to answer questions about it to see what we're doing with it. If the Member opposite has some question he wishes to take up with the Speaker, I'm sure the rules provide him with the opportunity to do that. But I'm not answering for the Speaker in this debate.

Mr. McClelland: I'm speaking in support of the amendment, Mr. Chairman. It's significant of the language the Minister used in replying to the amendment in the first instance. The words were, "interfere, interfere, interfere." And it came over and

[ Page 4783 ]

over. I know we can't talk to the principle of this bill, Mr. Chairman, but that's what is wrong with this whole Act. It's a deliberate attempt to give this government and the Minister full power to interfere, interfere, just as they did in the case that has been referred to.

The only difference is that the government wishes to legalize its strong-arm tactics. That's about the size of it.

The Minister has the power within all of the present legislation to sit down with the Members of marketing boards and his staff to talk to them about their various orders. The Minister has even admitted that he hasn't even asked the question yet about the example that he used. He has the authority to go and ask that question. He has the authority to go and sit down with those people involved with the marketing boards and persuade them or convince them of the error of their ways and ask them to change any orders that he wants them to. And it can all be done through free and easy negotiation rather than through this — heavy-handed, ham-handed approach — the big-club approach that this government seems to be wanting to get into more and more.

The Minister has certainly confirmed our suspicions by the use of that word, "interfere" because that's what this government is attempting now to legalize: the interference in areas where previously the people had full independence. That can no longer be true.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Yes, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, it seems to be the only solution that this government has to anything, whether it's in its education policy, in its labour policy, or in its agriculture policy. Heavy hand, use the club, strong-arm tactics, threaten, blackmail, coerce, rather than negotiate and discuss.

Mr. Chairman: Order. We're going to ask the Member for Langley to withdraw the word "blackmail."

Mr. McClelland: I'm sorry, would you repeat that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: I would ask you to withdraw the word "blackmail."

Mr. McClelland: I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the Hon. Member for Langley said, I have no authority to call the marketing board in to discuss with them their orders. I have an opportunity; I can telephone or write and ask them to come if they chose to come. I have no authority. That's what's wrong with this legislation up to this point. Government policy is that there shall be some authority.

I'd like to read from a letter that I received from the chairman of one of the marketing boards. It was received in my office November 12.

"I am extremely pleased that you have finally got Bill 165 well underway.

"I suppose, not unnaturally, I had some inquiries from the opposition, hoping that I would help lambaste the appeal section in particular. I told them in no uncertain terms that I felt it high time the consumers and others had a chance to confirm their suspicions, or, as I envisage it, to see for themselves that marketing boards are not by and large the monsters that they had been painted of late."

That's from the chairman of one of the marketing boards. It's quite in line with government policy. In that is in line with government policy, we want subsection (2) as is.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I've been asked who? I don't have the writer's authority to publicize this. But I will....

An Hon. Member: Come on now, come on.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: If anyone wants to know his name, I will ask this person whether or not he would like his name released to them.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote to you from page 4492 of Hansard, which was the November 6 issue. When my colleague, the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), stated quite correctly that what was in the bill:

...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.

Here's what Mr. Speaker said....

Mr. Chairman: Order! You're not speaking to the amendment; you're trying to redevelop the debate on second reading. That's out of order.

Mr. McGeer: No, I'm not.

Mr. Chairman: I want you to deal with your amendment. That's all you're to deal with; you're not to re-enter the second reading debate.

[ Page 4784 ]

Mr. McGeer: That's precisely, exactly, definitively and essentially what I am dealing with here. It's whether or not, Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate to delete from section 12 the words that say, "before or" because those words are the two words in this Act that give it retroactive effect. There can be no question about that.

Mr. Chairman, the Speaker said, and I quote from page 4492 of Hansard:

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 that would make retroactive the....

Mr. Chairman: Order! What is on the floor of this committee right now is your amendment. Order! Will you take your seat. Order!

When I call this meeting to order, you are to take your seat and you know that. I want to remind you that you are dealing with an amendment that calls for the deletion of the two words. You're not dealing with the Speaker's ruling, and that is out of order. And you know what procedure you can take on that matter.

Mr. McGeer: ...the length of time that it takes to read a paragraph....

Mr. Chairman: I've already ruled that that's out of order. Now you deal with your amendment or take your place.

Mr. McGeer: ...ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman. It's a quote from Hansard.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to point out to you is that by his silence at that time, the Minister of Agriculture, who knew better than anyone in this House the contents of that bill, acknowledged the Speaker's ruling for the purposes of second reading debate.

If there had been any retroactive provisions, it was the duty of that Minister to stand up then and declare those retroactive provisions. By what he has said here during committee, he has acknowledged that he knew full well the import of section 12(2), and he refuses to accept that amendment that would give force to the Speaker's ruling on second reading.

What I am trying to say to you, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister is morally obliged to accept this amendment. If he does otherwise, then he will have been guilty of misleading the House at the time the Speaker in all innocence made a ruling which Members on this side of the House suggested at the time was wrong.

Now the Minister isn't pleading ignorance. The Minister is declaring full knowledge. He willfully permitted the Speaker to make a wrong decision. He did that for the purpose of getting this bill through second reading without a debate on the Kovachich case, or without the Kovachich case being mentioned.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. McGeer: He had an ally in this, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk).

Mr. Chairman: Will the Member take his seat? You are imputing improper motive, and I've told you that you're to be debating the amendment — that's all. You must deal with that amendment, and that's all. You cannot involve this committee in second reading, which is the matter of principle and has been dealt with.

Mr. McGeer: There's a pretty important principle involved in this amendment. It's a personal one, Mr. Chairman, personal with the Minister. We're trying to make an honest man of him.

Mr. Chairman: That's improper. Will you withdraw that?

Mr. McGeer: Yes, I do. We're not trying to make an honest man of him. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. McGeer: I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order! I'm going to ask the Member to correct that situation. You know you must withdraw without reservation.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I'm doing my very best to correct the situation. I'm offering the kind of amendment....

Mr. Chairman: Order! I'm asking you to withdraw without reservation the statement you made earlier.

Mr. McGeer: I withdraw without reservation.

Mr. Chairman: Now let me once again remind you to deal with the amendment. Let me remind you that you're dealing with the amendment and you're not going to get involved in principle discussion of this bill.

Mr. McGeer: You see, what we're involved with, Mr. Chairman, is this matter of trust and integrity, truth. These things were mentioned under another section. There's been this kind of moral sanctity

[ Page 4785 ]

about the government and the Minister, that they should be trusted, because they're marvelous fellows with the highest possible standards and they know better what the public should have for themselves than the public itself knows. If only we pass the legislation, the public will come to realize what wonderful good things the government is doing for them.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that when you report asking for leave or divisions to be recorded, whoever wishes the divisions to be recorded, I think, properly should make a motion to the Speaker after leave has been granted.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I'll tell you what I'll do on the question, because it's been raised with the clerks: I'll discuss it with them. But it seems to me that in order to keep our records correct, there should be some motion. All I'm doing now is asking leave that the divisions be recorded.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: I'll discuss the other question of procedure later with the clerks; I haven't got time to really look into it.

Hon. Mr. Stupich files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I'd just ask leave to withdraw question No. 222 in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: The order of business on Monday will be continuation of the Minister of Agriculture's debate on his bill, and then we will move into the Public Schools.... Then we will tell you where we go next Monday.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.

APPENDIX

198 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:

1. Has the Department of Agriculture expended funds for the purpose of site preparation and operation of any "rent-a-garden" sites within the Province?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) what was the total cost involved and (b) what was the total recovery, if any, by way of rents charged?

The Hon. D. D. Stupich replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. $56,474.30.

"3. $3,680."

223 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:

With respect to the Department's predator-control activities—

1. What extra sums have been allocated to predator-control programmes since July 1, 1974?

2. In what ways and with what results have predator-control activities been expanded?

The Hon. D. D. Stupich replied as follows:

" 1. None.

"2. Not applicable."

[ Page 4786 ]

APPENDIX

226 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:

With respect to the administration of the Farm Income Assurance Act—

1. How many segments of the agricultural industry have so far become participants in farm income plans?

2. What has been the total Provincial financial commitment to farm income plans?

The Hon. D. D. Stupich replied as follows:

" 1. Four.

"2. Commitment has been made to pay a percentage of the difference between the cost of production and market returns for a five-year period for each commodity group."