[ Page 4787 ]

CONTENTS

Statement. Mr. Speaker tables legal opinion relating to Bill 165 — 4787

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4787

Mr. Speaker — 4787

Routine proceedings

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 178). Hon. Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 4788

Oral questions

Resignation of BCR auditing firm. Mr. Bennett — 4788

Environmental impact studies on Kemano power projects. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4788

Continued sale of hazardous fabric. Mr. Wallace — 4788

MVB help in tracing automobiles. Mr. Curtis — 4789

Teacher/trustee conciliators. Mr. Schroeder — 4789

$100 million bond issue in U.S.A. Mr. Chabot — 4790

Extra body shop charges. Mr. Phillips — 4790

Government participation in mines. Mr. Gibson — 4791

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

Committee stage.

Amendment to section 12.

Mr. McGeer — 4791

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4792

Mr. McClelland — 4792

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4793

Mr. McClelland — 4793

Mr. McGeer — 4794

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4794

Mr. McClelland — 4794

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4795

Division on amendment to section 12 — 4795

Amendment to section 12.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4795

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4795

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4796

Mr. McGeer — 4796

Division on amendment to section 12 — 4798

On section 13.

Mr. Gibson — 4798

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4798

Mr. McClelland — 4799

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4799

Mr. McClelland — 4799

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4799

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4799

Mrs. Jordan — 4800

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4800

Amendment to section 14.

Mr. Wallace — 4800

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4800

Mr. Wallace — 4800

Statement Supreme Court decision on ICBC.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4801

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

Committee stage.

Amendment to section 14.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4801

Division on amendment to section 14 — 4801

Amendment to section 17.

Mr. Gardom — 4801

Mr. Wallace — 4802

Mr. Phillips — 4802

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4802

Mr. Gardom — 4803

Division on amendment to section 17 — 4804

Amendment to section 17.

Mr. Phillips — 4804

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4805

Division on amendment to section 17 — 4805

On section 17.

Mr. Wallace — 4805

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4806

Amendment to section 19.

Mr. Gibson — 4807

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4807

Mr. Gibson — 4808

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4808

On section 20.

Mr. Gibson — 4808

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4808

On section 24.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4809

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4809

On section 25.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4810

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4810

Amendment to the title.

Mr. Gardom — 4810

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4811

Division on amendment to the title — 4811

Division on third reading — 4811

Public Schools Interim Arbitration Procedure Act (Bill 173).

Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Schroeder — 4812

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4813

Mr. Schroeder — 

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 4813

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 4813

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4813

Mr. McGeer — 4813

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4813

Mr. Gibson — 4813

Mrs. Jordan — 4814

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4814

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4814

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4814

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4815

Mr. Curtis — 4815

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4815

On section 5.

Mr. Schroeder — 4815

Amendment to section 5.

Mr. Schroeder — 4816

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4816

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4816

Mr. Gibson — 4817

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4817

Division on amendment to section 5 — 4817

Amendment to section 5.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4817

Mr. Gibson — 4818

Mr. Wallace — 4818

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4818

On section 8.

Mr. Gibson — 4818

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4818

Report and third reading — 4818

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Ms. K. Sanford (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House this afternoon a guest from the beautiful constituency of Comox, Mr. Art Granger-from Alert Bay. I understand that Art is not one of those who's keen to become an American citizen.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce Laszlo Gati, our local symphony conductor, I'm sure most everyone here knows him, and a very special favour to introduce Mr. Nikolai Petrov of Moscow who'll be playing today and Wednesday with the symphony in concert.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before we proceed with the orders of the day, a matter came up on Friday in Committee of the Whole House relating to a decision that I had made.

It concerned me very much because I felt that a Speaker has a difficult job, in effect, to try to determine what the law is when that really goes beyond the usual necessities of the particular job. Where a Speaker has to deal with a question of sub judice, he must make some attempt to understand whether the matter before the House would in any way prejudice a pending lawsuit. Therefore, he has to examine, in a sense, what the law is — beyond what the law of parliament is — in order to make some determination at his own discretion as to whether debate should take place.

This concerned me very much and I know it would concern every Member, so I asked the legislative counsel, who draws up our legislation, if he would kindly furnish me with his legal opinion on the question of whether anything in the bill that was before us, Bill 165…whether this change in law would affect any pending litigation. He's given me his opinion which I would like to table with the House so Hon. Members may study it.

I won't read it all, but merely say that he agrees with me that it would not, in any interpretation of the bill. Of course, since I have to use my own discretion in deciding whether debate should go into that aspect, when I did so I did so in the feeling that it did not impinge upon any pending court case so far as this Bill 165 is concerned. I therefore table this with the House. Members can have copies of it.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order arising out of the remarks you have just made to the House, it has always been my understanding, and you have reinforced this many, many times, that the Speaker of this House has no knowledge of what takes place in committee. I wonder, in the circumstances, if you could indicate whether this is to be a change in the practice and procedure of this House in respect to the relationship of the House and the committee, and if we in the future may therefore call upon you for decisions on matters which might arise in the course of committee proceedings.

Mr. Speaker: I draw the Hon. Member's attention to the 18th Volume of May, page 398:

"Although the Speaker is restrained by usage" — that's his own usage — "while he is in the chair in the exercise of his independent judgment, he is entitled in a committee of the whole House to speak and vote like any other Member."

It follows from that that he's also entitled to be present,

"Under modern practice, however, he has abstained from the exercise of this right."

It's a right and it's his own abstention, not that of the House.

I on my part certainly am aware of my own decision in the House, and what I am doing here is tabling with the House some reinforcement of my decision in the House so that Members will know in other future events what that decision was in terms of litigation.

Mr. L.A. Williams: On the same point of order, I wasn't questioning what you have done; I just want to know whether in the future if the course of conduct in this House and the committee is to be different. I appreciate that under modern usage the Speakers do not often exercise their right. Are we to understand that as a result of the investigation you have made into this matter that we are to return to something of a more archaic form?

Mr. Speaker: No, I don't think you need to anticipate my plunging into debate in committee. They haven't f4813ound me a seat, actually, where I could sit on the floor. What I'm suggesting, though, is that where the Speaker is brought into any debate in committee or anywhere else, he's always entitled to state his position. In this case I'm doing so because it relates to a decision I made in the House, based upon some authorities, What I'm doing is substantiating it further with the legal opinion, which is beyond what I would normally have to do myself. It's a disadvantage sometimes being a lawyer in this job.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, being a lawyer, perhaps you might deem it fit to obtain a second opinion. (Laughter.)

[ Page 4788 ]

Mr. Speaker: Well I'd be delighted. I thought that's what I did. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (NO. 2)

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2).

Bill 178 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RESIGNATION OF
BCR AUDITING FIRM

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon. Minister Without Portfolio, as a director of the B.C. Railway — a post for which I understand he's well qualified.

I have in my hand an audited statement of the British Columbia Railway in which it shows losses last year of $3,300,000 and profits the year before of $900,000. But the interesting part of my question is that this report was done by Buttar & Chiene, an auditing firm that's done the books of the PGE and the B.C. Railways since 1916, and that on September 11 they resigned because they weren't prepared to change the auditing procedures because of the mounting losses that the railway wished to hide this year. Would the Minister advise the House….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I remind the Member that questions should not contain editorial opinion of the sort in which you are indulging.

Mr. Bennett: That's not it; I'm just saying why they resigned.

Mr. Speaker: I don't know that you know that. If it's a public matter, it's all right.

Mr. Bennett: I just told you that I knew that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The fact is that they resigned.

Mr. Bennett: Anyhow, would the Minister, when he confirms the resignation of Buttar & Chiene to the House, advise that the condition of employment for new chartered accountants, when they advertise for them, will contain the requirement that they change the accounting procedures?

Hon. A.A. Nunweiler (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we do not deal in rumours. However, I will take the question as notice.

Mr. Bennett: I would like to further ask the Minister: why the long delay in advertising for accountants? The fiscal year will end December 31; the railway has been without chartered accountants — independent chartered accountants — since September. Why the long delay in advertising for new accountants?

Mr. Speaker: Is the Hon. Member taking that as notice as well?

Hon. Mr. Nunweiler: I will take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The first question is taken as notice; I presume the second supplementary would be as notice. Or is it a different question altogether?

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, although it relates to the same subject, it's information for the House. I believe the Minister was prepared to answer.

Mr. Speaker: It's up to the Minister which course he follows.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES
ON KEMANO POWER PROJECTS

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): To the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. May I ask the Minister whether his department has carried out impact studies, environmental impact studies, on the Morice and Bulkley River systems on the effect of Alcan's proposed phase two of the Kemano power development?

Hon. J. Radford (Minister Of Recreation And Conservation): I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

CONTINUED SALE OF
HAZARDOUS FABRIC

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Consumer Affairs whether the Minister is aware that this Canadian-made cotton material is available in K-Mart stores? It is highly inflammable, and last week it led to the death of a three-year-old child in Surrey. No progress has been made in trying to remove this from the shelves.

Hon. P.F. Young ( Minister Of Consumer

[ Page 4789 ]

Services): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the case. I am aware of the fabric. I would draw to the Hon. Member's attention that this kind of material and its inflammability is under the Hazardous Products Act, which is federal legislation. It is my understanding that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is now looking into the matter.

Mr. Wallace: A supplementary question. Could I just ask the lady Minister if she herself has been in touch with the federal department concerned to try to bring about some enhancement of safety standards and proper notification to the consumer when they buy the product?

Hon. Ms. Young: It's my understanding that my department has been in touch with the department in Vancouver on this very subject.

MVB HELP IN TRACING AUTOMOBILES

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): To the Minister of Transport and Communications. Last week the Minister indicated that cases where police officers found it necessary to contact insurance agents in the course of their search for a particular vehicle were relatively rare now. May I ask the Minister if he is aware of a very recent example which occurred in the greater Victoria area last week — in fact, Mr. Speaker, in the early hours of Friday morning last, November 15?

A member of the Colwood detachment, RCMP, investigating the disarming and holding of two RCMP officers in a downtown hotel found it necessary to contact a Victoria insurance agent in the middle of the night to ask him to go to his office and determine the registered owner of a particular automobile which the RCMP had under surveillance. Is the Minister aware of the situation? Would he care to amend his statement of last week?

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communication): I wasn't aware of that indication. I think the Member knows that there never, has been a 24-hour availability of service from the Motor Vehicle Branch.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Not from the Motor Vehicle Branch there has not been a 24-hour availability.

However….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: My friend says, "not since I messed it up." I want to tell you that I read a statement about some of the things you've been saying that will be released a little later in the week. Then you might regret some of the statements you've been making.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister address himself to the question?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: But I wasn't aware of that, It can happen in the middle of the night. But I can assure you that the situation is being taken care of.

Mr. Curtis: The Minister's threats do not disturb me. I challenge the Minister with respect to the 24-hour service by the Motor Vehicle Branch as it existed. It was used repeatedly by police forces in their efforts to determine who owned a particular automobile.

The supplementary to the Minister is: would he also investigate the case as to why the RCMP has been — I believe for some four to five months — attempting to determine the owner of a registered vehicle in the Kamloops area? I emphasize four to five months. Again, there's been no success in seeking information from the Motor Vehicle Branch.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Would the Member like to give me the details so .I can check into it?

Mr. Curtis: I certainly would. As a matter of fact, the insurance agent concerned in the earlier case, Mr. Speaker, is prepared to sign an affidavit.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'm not worried about affidavits. Would you give me the information instead of getting up and making accusations? I will check into it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Cheap politics, that's all you're interested in.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Those matters can be gone into between the two Members.

TEACHER/TRUSTEE CONCILIATORS

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, the question is for the Minister of Education, with reference to bargaining in the

[ Page 4790 ]

teacher/trustee dispute. Can the Minister inform the House as to how many of the conciliators are functioning as conciliators today, and how many are scheduled to meet in the next two weeks?

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): All conciliators should be functioning. As you know, it will be their role to report on the deadline for moving into arbitration. So certainly they must be functioning. I cannot give you any further report than I think you are already aware of. There were two boards that had been doing some form of conciliation with the teachers' associations. They seem to have broken down. But I am not up to date on it.

I'm still hopeful, Mr. Member, that there may be some conciliation agreements reached.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is currently against the law, as the Minister has indicated, for conciliation to proceed, may I ask her what steps she is taking to make sure that the existing law of the province with respect to this will be obeyed by both the trustees and the teachers? It's arbitration that is required by law.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I think the trustee president, Mrs. Madson, made a statement that they would uphold the legislation, which they know has already passed through second reading in the House. Part of the legislation states, of course, that when royal assent is given, then it is retroactive. We have had the assurance from the trustees' association that they will follow through under that assumption.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: In view of the fact that we've seen amendments come before this House after second reading, may I ask the Minister again what steps she is taking to make sure the law is obeyed as it is at present — which calls for arbitration and arbitrators to be named by both parties?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Do you mean that the arbitration should now be in process in all districts?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's right. That's the law of the land.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: All I can restate is that the bill, which went through second reading and hopefully will go into committee stage today, does state in it — and the trustees are well aware of it — the retroactivity of that bill.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could tell me what will happen if that bill gets defeated.

Mr. Speaker: It's not a point of order in the first place. In the second place, it's not a question of hypothetical questions in question period, of what will happen if this, or that….

$100 MILLION BOND ISSUE IN U.S.A.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): A question to the Minister in charge of finance, a two-point question. In view of the government's $25 million sale of parity bonds at 8.5 per cent in British Columbia, what motivated the government to sell a $100 million bond issue at 10.25 per cent in Boston, U.S.A.? And how many of the low-interest-bearing bonds were absorbed by the pension funds administered by the government?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I will take that as notice.

EXTRA BODY SHOP CHARGES

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. There are an increasing number of people coming to me stating that they are having to pay an illegal premium on their insurance policy when they have an accident. On going back to the claim centres these people are told that they don't know what they can do, that this is a situation that's not legal. They go to the Minister and they're unable to get hold of him; they go to his assistant and they're told to go to the head office in Vancouver. On going to Vancouver they're told that there is a policy being formed.

My question is: how much longer will this illegal premium be charged to people who have accidents?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I suppose if the body shops are not prepared to maintain the agreement that their designated spokesman made with us, then the situation will continue.

An Hon. Member: What are you doing about it?

Mr. Phillips: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is very well aware, and has been aware for quite some time, that this situation exists. The contract you have — unwritten contract — with ICBC in the regulations is that they are legally responsible to have the unit fixed at a body shop of the customer's choice. The point is that when this happens, they are being charged an additional premium. In essence, it's an additional premium.

Mr. Speaker: I think that everybody grasped that from your question in the first place. Is there anything you have in the way of a question?

[ Page 4791 ]

Mr. Phillips: The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) did not answer my question. I want to know how much longer he's going to allow this illegal situation to prevail in British Columbia? How much longer?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Perhaps the Member would like to suggest some procedure under which we should take these people to court who are breaking their agreement. Is that what you're suggesting?

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano has a question. He has been waiting for some time. Will you defer to the Hon. Member? Order please!

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: That's a rhetorical and hypothetical question. I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN MINES

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a question for the Minister of Mines. Now that the Minister has had several days' notice of a question as to whether or not any of his officials were in discussions with the owners of a mining property in the Omineca mining district with respect to the possibility of the government acquiring it or sharing in it, could he now make a report to the House?

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister Of Mines And Petroleum Resources): There have been quite a few properties that have been asking us to participate in bringing into production. I'm sure everyone of them is given consideration because we're always looking for a bonanza someplace that might really be worthwhile. (Laughter.)

That's as far as I can answer at the present time. There have been none that have been made any offers or any such thing as that.

Mr. Gibson: I have different information than the Minister as to whom is the "asker" and the "askee" in this situation. But I'd ask him: is it government policy now to take over mines?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Not to this point.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: We've got it in the legislation that we can participate if we so wish, and this is one of the great helps to the prospectors in the province who are trying to operate little mines. As I said before, if a real bonanza comes along, maybe we might consider it.

Mr. C.S. Gabelmann (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if you might inform the House what the procedure is for question period in terms of alternating between parties.

The Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) was on his feet since 15 minutes ago and at least six Members of the official opposition were recognized prior to him.

Mr. Speaker: I'm very sorry….

Mr. Gabelmann: One Member of the Liberal Party was recognized even though he stood up after the Member for Mackenzie. I wonder if a policy of alternating parties would be taken into consideration n the future.

Mr. Speaker: I apologize to the Hon. Member. I didn't notice because most of my attention is over on the opposition side of the House. I must apologize. I hope that when I overlook someone, he would be kind enough to send me a note to say that he has been overlooked before the time is up.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I think that every Member in this House is entitled to equal treatment regardless of where he sits.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: But I certainly apologize.

Orders of the day.

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

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING
(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

(continued)

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

On the amendment to section 12.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Call the amendment, Mr. Chairman, because…

Mr. Chairman: I thought I did that.

Mr. McGeer: …I had hoped at this stage we

[ Page 4792 ]

would be able to hear from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), he having had the weekend to consider the wisdom of the amendment being offered here.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be repetitious in debate. I'm never that way willfully, as you know, Mr. Chairman, but, to review the situation briefly, as I recall it from last Friday, we were talking about whether it was wise to grant powers under this particular subsection that would permit this superboard to alter, vary, and so forth and so on, regulations that it had made prior to the creation of this superboard.

The Minister, in defending the legislation, made it rather clear that it was the government's intention to have the superboard make alterations to regulations that were passed prior to its creation. To me, this is the equivalent of retroactive powers as far as this superboard is concerned. It's evident that the legislation was written with that intent. The Minister himself confirmed that this was the case. He said it wasn't going to be specifically for Sy Kovachich. He didn't say who it was for, but he made it pretty clear that it was for somebody and that it was for some regulations that the boards in their wisdom had thought were wise but the Minister, with whatever wisdom he has, decided were unwise.

I think, before we cast our votes on this particular amendment, we had better hear from the Minister exactly who he has in mind. What were these regulations that were so bad that they require legislation now permitting a superboard to change them? If the Minister knows of these things — by his statements on Friday he does — then we presume that the superboard will be created merely to carry out his policies in a non-political fashion.

I heard, Mr. Chairman, just when you asked about this amendment, some of the NDP backbenchers saying, "No, the amendment shouldn't pass."

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: I heard some from back in that corner.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: I think my hearing is good enough to detect that. These people back there were prepared to vote this amendment down without ever hearing from the Minister who was to be punished by this retroactive step that the Minister has prepared. They didn't even want to know.

Now, I think the backbenchers have open minds; I think they were just hasty in saying no. I think they want to hear from the Minister just as much as I do about what rules and regulations are going to be changed.

If it isn't for Sy Kovachich, who is it for? Make a clean breast of it, Mr. Minister. We know you wish now that you had done that last February, when we got into this chicken-and-egg war, and you and the Premier offered some opinions in this House which weren't exactly backed up by sworn testimony. I'm not going to call them liars because, you can't do that. The Minister wasn't on oath when he made his statements but the members of the Egg Marketing Board were — and their statements disagreed with the Minister's statements.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Pardon? Well, I'm just trying to give a little background here because we've got to decide whether the Minister is being completely frank with us, whether he's giving a full explanation of the situation or whether we're just going to get a rerun of the kind of thing that went on last February.

Mr. Minister, could you tell us just who this retroactive legislation is for? What have been the problems? Why is it necessary? I think if we get these things spelled out fully now, on the record, then we will know what the retroactive intent is, and then we can make judgments as to whether or not it is essential that this amendment pass.

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister Of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, contrary to the suggestion offered by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, I can't imagine a situation where the British Columbia marketing board will be trying to amend an order or regulation which it passed before it came into being.

I have no specific situation in mind. When I spoke on this on Friday I did suggest some general situations where an as yet unnamed British Columbia marketing board, in response to as yet unlaunched questions or appeals from anyone who might wish to appeal, might ask for some change or. some cancellation in some order. But I did give the general situations where I thought this could happen. I have no specific situations, no specific orders or regulations in mind in this particular section or subsection.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I find it difficult, in a way, to say that I don't believe the Minister, but I don't. He says that he has no specific situations in mind. The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) asked the Minister who this retroactivity was for, on a couple of occasions, and really hasn't had any answer.

There was also a suggestion made in this House that we have been misled in regard to this whole retroactivity section. I believe that is correct, that we have been misled.

Perhaps we have been taken down the garden path

[ Page 4793 ]

a couple of times, because I'm reasonably convinced at this point that the Minister does not intend to, as he put it, fiddle around with the Sy Kovachich case. I've talked with several people from the Egg Marketing Board in the last couple of days, and they have told me that they haven't had any interference yet and that they are going to press their case right through to the beginning. (Laughter.) I don't know whether that will be…. Right through to the end, pardon me.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): A couple more mistakes like that and you can write him off. (Laughter.)

Mr. McClelland: Right the first time, Mr. Chairman, however, I believe that the Minister has this specific legislation in mind for a specific situation, and that specific situation has to do with the trouble that he's in personally with regard to the national egg marketing system.

I think the Minister won't answer because he's embarrassed, because he has got himself into a jackpot for which he finds no way out. Because he's going to have to find a way out, it is in this legislation, and particularly in this section which has to do with retroactivity, that he's going to get himself off the hook.

I don't know whether or not there will be interference from this Minister or anyone in government once that Kovachich case may progress to the point where subpoenas are issued for the Premier and the Agriculture Minister, if that happens. But at this point I am convinced that there is no interference. There might be some interference later when those subpoenas are issued. I expect that they should be…that they certainly should be issued.

But the Canadian Egg Marketing Association was initiated on behalf of the Province of British Columbia, as I understand it, under the farm products marketing agencies Act, as was the Turkey Marketing Board as well, the national board. The Minister signed those agreements without any statutory authority.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McClelland: Under the legislation in operation at that time in British Columbia he has no right to sign those agreements on behalf of any British Columbia marketing board, or on behalf of the government, for that matter.

Mr. Chairman, the whole matter of the Canadian Egg Marketing Association, the Turkey Marketing Board, could be ultra vires at this time. I believe it is open to some serious challenges in the courts and otherwise. And all of the levies which have been paid by the producers under the terms of those agreements are now challengeable and are, I believe, completely ultra vires.

So the retroactivity under this section, 12(2), certainly does have reference to a specific situation; it has reference to the situation which will get the Minister off the hook and get him out of trouble.

There isn't any doubt that the Egg Marketing Board, for one, did not want to go into the national scheme, but they were assured by the Minister that everything was open and above-board, that everything would be fine.

But if we check the definition section of this Act we will find that there has been an addition from the original bill under the term "federal board" in which the farm products marketing agencies Act has now been included in the definition section of this Act, which in fact gets the Minister off the hook and legalizes what has been an illegal situation and a situation in which the Minister acted with absolutely no authority and thereby is in serious trouble at this time. That is the specific situation for which this Act has been drawn.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I have to recognize the legal expertise of the Hon. Member for Langley, but I don't have to accept his advice without consulting with others. I have consulted with legislative counsel on this question, and in legislative counsel's opinion…. Of course, as you say, we can get different legal opinions by going to different experts. In my case I did go to legislative counsel, senior legislative counsel, and I'm told by him that the old reference in section 2 to the federal Act does cover the situation that he describes, and there is no need for any retroactivity to deal with that particular situation.

Now that is his advice against the legal advice from the Member for Langley, and I choose to take the advice I am given by legislative counsel.

Mr. McClelland: I just wish to say that on Friday when we were discussing this bill, the Minister admitted that he was given some kind of advice to say that we had to put in a section in here that was drawn up in 1948. He didn't have any idea what it meant; no one could tell him what it meant, but because he had been told it should be in there, he was going to put it in there. He refused to look at it again to decide whether we should take it out because it didn't mean anything.

So I would suggest that the Minister is on pretty shaky ground here, I would just ask him: if it wasn't necessary to have the additional marketing agency mentioned within the definition section, then why was it mentioned specifically? I say once again, Mr. Chairman, it's to get him off the hook. It is as simple as that.

[ Page 4794 ]

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I'm, of course, very impressed with what the Minister said — that he checked legislative counsel with this. I presume it was legislative counsel who draughted this bill, and I would be surprised if the individual who draughted it was not convinced that the draughting was correct.

We've made a small amendment here to make certain that there is no misinterpretation of this Act. We, the elected Members, have the responsibility of ratifying or rejecting bills that are draughted and presented by Ministers. As we have learned to our dismay, Mr. Chairman, the bills that come before us are not always perfect. Indeed, as I was saying only last week, about two-thirds of the legislation we deal with in this House is legislation amending previous legislation, dealing with things that weren't anticipated at the time the legislation was draughted, often because insufficient opinions were sought before those bills received second and third reading in this House, No single person can anticipate all of the situations that might develop from a particular Act. That is why I believe it is so essential that all bills be referred to committee of this House, and that testimony, open testimony, be sought on the wording of each individual bill. That way we avoid the kind of mistakes that have plagued this Legislature in all the time that I have been here.

My question to the Minister is: was there a second opinion on this matter? Then I would like to ask the Minister to consider for a moment his own words of Friday, in which he said, in reply to the questions which I raised in introducing this amendment, referring now to orders of the various marketing boards, he said 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.

I interpret that, Mr. Chairman, a little differently from the Minister's remarks today, which rather innocently suggested that there really wasn't anything that he had in mind; he didn't know of any situations.

Anyway, this little clause was wise to have in there just in case something did crop up which hadn't been anticipated. That was the impression that I got from his remarks today. But the impression that I got on Friday was that there are many other orders that marketing boards have passed recently. The suggestion was pretty specific, namely that the government had specific instances in mind, not just the Sy Kovachich case, and that it intended to appoint a superboard with instructions to deal with those specific situations.

I think the Minister has shifted his ground. I'm not saying that he's a shifty Minister, but I detect a shift in ground here. What we haven't got, Mr. Chairman, is to the bottom of what the Minister has in mind with this particular section, allowing these previous regulations to be altered.

I wonder once more then if the Minister could tell us how many confirming opinions he has had and, secondly, what these specific instances were.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I had the opinion of the senior legislative counsel, a written opinion, handed down today. No doubt senior legislative counsel was able to contact others to the extent that he felt it was necessary to do so. We have the services of three Clerks, all of whom are lawyers. The Speaker of the House has contributed his opinion in this situation. All of these people are trained in law.

They say that free advice is worth what you pay for it. Beyond the trained legal advice we have had on this question we have today had the advice of a radio announcer from Langley and a medical doctor from Vancouver. So we're still getting advice.

To this point I see no need to change any action that I've taken so far, when I weigh the advice that I've had from all of these sources.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I'm appreciative of the answer from the Minister that he gets lots of advice. I hope he listens to it from time to time. But I wonder if he's really clarified the situation at all. I don't think he has, with regard to what that advice is all about. Is the advice just whether or not this subsection is in order, or does it really relate to some of the specific situations that we mentioned?

I'd like to ask the Minister a direct question for which I might hope to get a direct answer, Mr. Chairman. It is whether or not he was, in fact, acting without statutory authority when he signed the agreements going into the Canadian Egg Marketing Association. What kind of advice has he had on that?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I thought I made it quite clear that I had the advice of senior legislative counsel to the effect that I was not acting without statutory authority.

Mr. McClelland: Is that the written report that came down today? Is that what you said?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The written report that came down today was with respect to whether or not this legislation, and in particular section 12(2), could have any effect on a legal case that is currently in progress. The written advice was with respect to that case, not with respect to the national agency. That advice was given to me previously, much earlier.

Mr. McClelland: Could I ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he expects that this

[ Page 4795 ]

retroactive section will be applied to any portions of the national scheme, either the Turkey Marketing Board or the Canadian Egg Marketing Association — whether he'll apply this retroactivity clause to either of those situations?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: On the basis of advice given to me some time ago by senior legislative counsel, I would not expect that to be necessary.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 24

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker, would you draw his attention to the fact that a division took place and ask leave to have it recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, we've had a very interesting discussion on the point raised by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). The Minister in his reply today with reference to what he might do under the retroactive provisions of this bill, and also on Friday, when he discussed the same retroactive effect of this legislation; indicated that he had a few things in mind, but only generally in his mind; he had no specific things.

He went on to say last Friday that there are many other orders that marketing boards have passed recently and that may be passed before this bill becomes law which the provincial marketing board may want to interfere with.

Well, we've heard the general request for these retroactive provisions to be struck down and rejected. That request was rejected. I think it would now be in order perhaps to put in a specific request that in certain areas where we have been assured that there will not be retroactive application of this legislation, we write it right into the Act and not simply accept the assurance of the Minister.

I think it's fairly clear from what was said by the Minister. He had one of his conveniently bad days for memory; he couldn't quite think what exactly he wanted to have this particular retroactive section used for. When we think back to his milk of amnesia which he's taken on other debates in this Legislature, we realize that perhaps it would be a good thing to pin down precisely the areas where we have had a vague and general assurance of non-intervention, and put them into the legislation so that there could be in no way any use of this retroactive power with respect to certain cases currently before the courts.

I think that this would be beneficial from the Speaker's point of view and the point of view of the Clerks of the House as well. Decisions have been given which are really not needed if you specifically exclude the areas which I am concerned about and which other Members of my party are concerned about, which the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and Members of his party are concerned about: namely, where there are pending court cases.

If you can exclude them from any retroactive provisions, then we're in a position where we can accept quite happily the assurances of the Minister. By law, it would be impossible for him or the board or commission to interfere in those cases.

Therefore, rather than a general amendment such as that put forward by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) I would like to introduce a specific amendment, a specific prohibition with respect to the use of retroactive legislation. That is that we add at the end of section 12(2) the words:

"except where a marketing board has by November 14, 1974 sought a court ruling to clarity its powers."

It's a very specific amendment, something which would easily be accepted by the government, something which the Minister himself indicated quite clearly would be something he would not object to. Therefore, I modestly move the following amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment appears to be in order. The concern was that it's almost the same as the amendment that was just dealt with, but it's a little different and it's in order.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I find the amendment quite unacceptable, Apart from the amendment itself, of course, the Hon. Member, in introducing the amendment and speaking to it, was very successful in couching it in such language that the most inoffensive amendment would be very offensive.

[ Page 4796 ]

But leaving that aside, by admitting this amendment, we would be saying-in effect that without this amendment the legislation does allow the sort of thing that he is afraid of happening. We've said from the beginning and I've quoted legal opinions to the effect that the legislation as it is now before the House does not allow any interference with anything that is now before the courts. With that situation before us, there is no need to include the sort of amendment that has now been offered. For that reason, we will not accept the amendment.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I would have thought in a small mini-session of the Legislature, when we're essentially repairing mistakes made in other legislation passed earlier this year which have been misunderstood by the Minister introducing it which is what we're doing with all these No. 2 amendment bills and No. 3 amendment bills which are coming forward — that the possibility of error would be high in the minds of all Ministers.

It is possible to make a mistake. Even Ministers are human. Yes, it's true, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), and I know that you'd be one of the first to admit that you're not immune from making the odd little mistake.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Nevertheless, we have the Minister getting up and saying that because the bill doesn't permit this type of interference — at least it doesn't according to his interpretation of it — therefore, we won't write something in which will make the poor Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and myself sleep a little easier at night. In other words, just that minor little guarantee, just those specific words which will make the Minister absolutely sure that his interpretation is correct and under no circumstances could the bill be used for purposes for which he didn't design it.

Now, it's absurd, I believe, to say that because there is a legal dispute perhaps as to the applicability of retroactivity, because he has taken one side, therefore he won't accept a modest amendment from the opposition which would guarantee that his interpretation could not be overturned by any subsequent Minister of Agriculture. It would guarantee it; it would guarantee the very interpretation he wishes to put on this particular section. I would suggest that to vote it down raises some very, very serious questions as to the Minister's intentions, questions which naturally we wouldn't raise. It would be presumptuous and anticipatory to raise them now. But when you have a minor amendment, a small amendment, simply designed to make sure that even if the Minister's interpretation is wrong, nevertheless, no subsequent Minister could use this section in a way that this Minister has stated he will not do.

I find it really curious that the Minister in question will not accept the amendment. It's not a major thing; it's a relatively minor one from his point of view. It simply makes more certain, it guarantees that his interpretation has to be correct. I would have thought under those circumstances, in a session such as we have at the present time when we're dealing with correcting mistakes of other Ministers in other bills, that he would be happy and, indeed, quick to accept this opposition amendment.

The backbench of the government side, who have understood what he said undoubtedly and who realize that, even if this amendment is accepted, it certainly wouldn't vary any of the powers the Minister wants to use, will be happy to agree with the opposition and just in this one instance, in this one minor subsection, section 12(2), to agree with the opposition that we will, by putting this in, remove temptation from this Minister and prevent a subsequent Minister from changing the policies outlined in this Legislature by the present Minister of Agriculture. This guarantee, this minor guarantee which is inherent in my amendment I'm sure must commend itself to the Members of the backbench of the government party.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Liberal leader in this matter because he more than anybody else has attempted to get matters with the Egg Marketing Board straightened out. I would have thought that the Minister of Agriculture would have been quick to accept an amendment which, if things are as the Minister says, would not only be harmless but appropriate.

If things are the way the Minister said, then this would be the kind of addition to the legislation that would underline his very meaning, namely that there was going to be nothing in an Act of his that could be misinterpreted by anybody as being used to interfere with the Sy Kovachich case.

That's the whole intention of this amendment — to make certain that the legislation isn't interpreted by any non-partisan board that the Minister appoints. And they're going to be non-partisan, we know that — any non-partisan board that the Minister appoints won't take it upon itself to use the wording of this Act to interfere in the way the Minister insists will not be done. But what does the Minister do? Mr. Chairman, he stood up and he said it was ridiculous, it wasn't necessary.

Now that's either arrogance based on over-confidence, considering the past record of that government and that Minister on the matter of legislation…so certain when they bring these bills in for second reading, so quick to change them when

[ Page 4797 ]

they find that others interpret them in a slightly different way than they do.

That is maybe putting it in a favourable light; even a charitable light, because there are other interpretations possible. One of these interpretations is that the amendment put forward by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the Liberal leader, would change things, from the government's point of view — it would place restrictions on them that they don't want to have.

In other words, to follow through with the declared intention of the Minister here this afternoon would be the last thing that the government would really want. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if it weren't that way, why wouldn't the Minister be pleased to accept the amendment? If it weren't that way why would he not be pleased to accept the amendment?

Indeed if it's like the Minister says it is, why wouldn't the backbenchers help him out — vote for the amendment anyway? Do him a favour, because if things are the way the Minister says they are, this amendment isn't going to do any harm; it's going to help. But if they're not the way the Minister says they are, and the amendment is left out….

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Indeed rejected.

Mr. McGeer: Indeed rejected.

Do you know who gets to pay? Do you know who gets to pay for the government's mistakes? I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the backbenchers get to pay. They're the ones who lose their seats first, yes, siree, not the Ministers; they get to survive. It's the backbenchers who lose. Think about that.

Mr. Chairman: I'm thinking that you are off the amendment.

Mr. McGeer: No, I'm trying to explain the importance — that it's sometimes very, very important….

Mr. Chairman: You're supposed to be speaking to the amendment. You're supposed to be relevant to the amendment.

Mr. McGeer: I'm speaking to the amendment. I'm trying to explain.

Mr. Chairman: You're off the amendment.

Mr. McGeer: No, no. I'm right on the amendment. Right on it.

Mr. Chairman: Please get yourself back to the amendment or take your seat.

Mr. McGeer: I'm on the amendment, Mr.

Chairman. That's exactly what I was discussing…

Mr. Chairman: I want you to stay on the amendment. Now you may proceed.

Mr. McGeer: …the one that says…just adding the words "except where a marketing board has by November 14, 1974, sought a court ruling to clarify its powers."

Mr. Chairman: I'm aware of the amendment. It's on the floor.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, if you'll recall, I was addressing some of my remarks, through you, to the Minister, but he's not here and so I was directing some of my arguments in the meantime to…Oh, he is back, sorry; he's just not in his chair…to some of the others, because we all have equal votes and the votes of the backbenchers are every bit as important as the Minister's.

Mr. Chairman: But that has nothing to do with this amendment.

Mr. McGeer: But I can surely persuade them.

Mr. Chairman: I urge you to get back to the amendment, or take your seat.

Mr. McGeer: Am I not permitted to persuade Members to use their vote?

Mr. Chairman: You may speak to the amendment, and it has nothing to do with advising people and so on, as you're carrying on.

Mr. McGeer: Well, I think it is important that they don't make mistakes. I think it is important that the chamber does not make mistakes.

Mr. Chairman: You may speak either for or against the amendment.

Mr. McGeer: I'm for it.

Mr. Chairman: Well, that's the point you should be making.

Mr. McGeer: And I hope they're for it too, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: That's the point you should be making.

Mr. McGeer: Certainly, and I want to encourage everyone else to be in favour of it, because I think if people stop and think about this one for just'a

[ Page 4798 ]

moment or two — its strong virtues and its limited liabilities — that they'll be like I am, in support of the suggestion made by the Liberal leader.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 24

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker, will you advise him that a division took place and ask that it be recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, at the time of second reading the Minister made some slight allusion to this concept of a marketing commission. If I recall rightly, he stated that a marketing commission was to be a vehicle in a marketing board.

It would have seemed to me, however, that one could simply make the order establishing the board somewhat more restrictive and that would have accomplished the same end. I would like to ask the Minister what this section means.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, I find myself generally in agreement with what the Hon. Member suggests. However, from the point of view of the agricultural industry itself, the cattlemen's organization in particular is very reluctant to enter into a marketing board as such. The euphemism — if you like, the connotation — is that they just don't like the association of marketing boards and the powers that marketing boards in general have.

So they have asked that provision by definition and by statute be made so that something short of a marketing board — they have even suggested a name: a marketing commission — be established, as it exists in some other provinces. Other provinces do have provision for a marketing commission different from a marketing board. The general rule is the same thing: the marketing commissions have less options open to them than do marketing boards in the things they may do.

It is purely to satisfy a desire on the part of some producers, or some commodity groups, to have something that will not be called a marketing board but will be called a marketing commission.

Mr. Gibson: I am still a little puzzled, Mr. Chairman, in seeking the exact language in this section which would restrict the powers of a commission to something less than a board, though. It seems to have virtually the same powers inasmuch as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can confer any powers it so wishes.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the marketing board could indeed, in drawing up the scheme, grant almost anything to the marketing commission. But all of these schemes are negotiated with the producer groups that are entering into the schemes. In the case of the cattlemen's organization, they want to be able to negotiate a scheme that will have less possibilities than will the ones adopted by all of the producer groups that have marketing boards. So it leaves the door open to that possibility.

Mr. Gibson: In the case of the cattlemen's association, who I know have had this sensitivity the Minister describes with respect to boards or commissions, would it be the intention of the Minister to hold some kind of a ratification vote or something like that prior to the imposition of any scheme in the cattle side of the industry?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, in every case where there is a scheme in operation, be it marketing board or — well, there are no commissions — but in every case where there is a scheme in operation under a marketing board, the producers — and they have agreed on the definition of producers — do vote on the scheme itself, They ask for it, the scheme is presented and the producers then vote as to whether or not they do want this particular scheme to be in effect.

Mr. Gibson: And that would be the intention?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: There will still be regulations. It will be a scheme, in effect, whether it is called a scheme or not. The cattlemen, again, will

[ Page 4799 ]

be in on the draughting of the scheme. It will be subject to their approval, and the members of the cattlemen's association would have to decide, as a I group, whether or not they want this marketing commission to be in effect.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I think, personally, that this is a totally ridiculous section. It's bureaucracy gone absolutely mad. The Minister has confirmed this today as the worst aspect of this whole section, in that because a specific commodity group, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, had some kind of a hang-up about the words "marketing board," here we have included in a piece of legislation before this House a whole new section setting up a whole new bureaucratic setup with a different name — marketing commission. It just doesn't make any sense.

It is unnecessary. It is unwieldy. It is ridiculous. It is a little stupid, and it is a cop-out to a group of people who could have been brought in under the existing legislation.

Mr. Chairman, here again the Minister has said that a marketing commission is going to have substantially less power than a marketing board. But that is contrary to what we discussed in the House on Friday. In the next section, section 14, marketing commissions will be given even more power, at least more scope, than a marketing board, because they will also have the opportunity — and I know the Minister has said that just because the wording is in the Act doesn't mean anything — but they have the opportunity to engage in processing, where a marketing board doesn't, by definition within the very Act.

Mr. Chairman, I, really don't understand why, if that is the only reason, if just because the cattlemen had a hang-up about the words marketing board, if that's the only reason this section is in this Act, then it is pretty sloppy legislation on behalf of this government.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, better to be a little bit stupid than to be very much stupid. If we can accommodate the desires, the wishes, the expressed wishes of a group of producers in our community, by simply including one section or several sections in a piece of legislation, if that's the only cost…. It is not setting up another bureaucracy. It's an alternative organization. The same producers group would not have both.

Mr. McClelland: But what does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The same producers group would not have both a marketing board and a marketing commission. They would have one or the other. So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if this is being a little bit stupid in wanting to accommodate the wishes of a group of producers, I would rather be a little stupid than be a lot stupid and turn a deaf ear to their request.

Mr. McClelland: Why don't you take the bill back and look at it again and maybe come up with a system that will be a little less stupid than you are now?

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I was reasonably satisfied with what the Minister said, and I can understand in reading section 14 that it appears that the commissions are designed to have some slightly different approach to some of the problems in agriculture than would be the case of boards. I also noticed that later in the bill we are repealing the Cattle Industry Development Act, and it seems to follow the line.

However, what disturbs me is that while we are saying to the people in the cattle industry, "Well, we have special sections so that you can establish your marketing commission and you really are not involved in a scheme," when you look back at section 12, it says, "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may vest in any marketing board or commission…." — then a whole list of powers are given to marketing boards — "To regulate the time and place at which…product shall be packed; To exempt from determination…." — to fix and collect licence fees, to fix price or prices, maximum or minimum prices. All of the vast powers that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can invest in a marketing board can also be invested in a commission.

Now I think, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, that the, Minister, by bringing forward this Act with apparently a separate division dealing with marketing commissions, is deluding the people in the cattle industry into believing that because it is here they really have something different. If they establish a commission, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the commission, being a legal person — it says so in section 13, having the "power and capacity of a legal person" — can be invested with all the same powers and authorities that a marketing board can.

They don't have something different at all. I trust that the people in the cattle industry who, are looking for something different won't be confused.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't really think I can add much to what I've already said other than that the cattlemen have asked for this difference, and the cattlemen have not expressed in any way at all any concern about the legislation in its present form.

[ Page 4800 ]

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): I've listened to the Minister's comments with great interest. He has said that the commission does not have the powers of a marketing board. It's been pointed out by two Members of the opposition that in fact it does. Would the Minister please clarify what powers a commission would not have that a marketing board would have?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the powers that either the marketing board or the marketing commission would have would be spelled out in regulations. Now, as the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has said, the powers of a marketing commission actually could be quite extensive. The people entering into….

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order! I recognize the Minister.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: All I was going to say is that we are providing for the two types of organization at the request of producers concerned. The scheme that will be offered to the members of a particular producer group will be one that will be drawn up in consultation with the members of that group.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): When we discussed this bill in second reading, one of the points which was gone over ad nauseam was the fact that this bill was supposed to provide some better mechanism for protecting the consumer from the possibility of artificially inflated prices in the hands of marketing boards composed of self-interested individuals looking after, perhaps, their own interest as producers to a degree which was unfair to the consumer. As I think was pointed out on the second reading debate, nowhere in this bill is the word "consumer" mentioned.

In section 14(b), for example, we read that the objects of the commission — and since commissions and boards can easily be the same vehicle with the same powers — are:

"to initiate, support, or conduct programmes for promoting…and improving the economic well-being of persons engaged in the production, processing, and marketing of that natural product…."

I feel that somewhere in this bill there should be some mention of the consumer and that he has some economic interests also. With that thought, I'd like to move the following amendment to section 14 by adding after (c) the following subsection (d):

"To initiate, promote, and support efforts to ensure the participation of consumers in the direction and operation of marketing boards and commissions."

I so move.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The purpose of establishing marketing boards and marketing commissions — in this case we're dealing specifically with marketing commissions — is, indeed, to promote the interests of the producers of agricultural products.

In the case of marketing commissions, the emphasis is on marketing and promotion of the products they produce. When it comes to protection of the community at large — the consumers, if you like — then we have the appeal section. We have the provincial marketing board established under another section of the Act.

The protection of the consumers will come in under the sections dealing with the provincial marketing board and the appeals that may be made to the provincial marketing board. The orders and regulations passed by marketing commissions will be subject to review, to amending and to cancellation, just as are orders and regulations passed by marketing boards.

This section is not the appropriate place to recognize the protection of the consumers. I said we need it, and I said the community at large wants to have it and wants to know that it has. So we will not accept that amendment to this section.

Mr. Wallace: I would just like to make a further comment. The Minister has made the point that, in his view at least, commissions are somewhat different from boards and that there is an appeal mechanism.

I think this brings us back to the point that was raised again in second reading: maybe a little bit of preventive medicine in this Act would be a good idea. Maybe if the consumer was involved before certain actions were taken by marketing boards or commissions, there might not be a need for an appeal.

Here again, we have the legislation written in such a way that the consumer is excluded from the earlier decisions and actions of marketing boards. When we ask to have the consumer directly involved we are told that, of course, the appeal mechanism exists for the consumer to try and get any wrong righted. Within an appropriate amendment to this bill, we might be able to prevent some of the mistakes from being made in the first place.

I would accept the Minister's suggestion that it is possible that this section might not be the most appropriate to amend in relation to involving the consumer. Maybe there is a more appropriate section

[ Page 4801 ]

about which the Minister may care to advise me.

The discussion and the comments made by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) made it quite plain that the powers which can be vested in a marketing board can also be vested in a commission. While the Minister made the point well that this bill is to assist and protect the interests of consumers, I hope it is not the exclusive interest of consumers. I hope any bill in this House which is dedicated toward the better interests of any group in society should not exclude the community at large.

It's a mighty large section that we are talking about when we talk about the consumers of marketed products for the simple reason that we are talking about food itself. Somewhere in this bill the opposition must make the point that this is not for the exclusive use and interest of producers. The people who buy the product and eat the product clearly merit consideration. It seems to me unnecessarily bureaucratic to exclude the consumer until such time as there is something wrong with the function of the board and then appeal against the wrong action or decision.

I would suggest either that the Minister reconsider the amendment we are debating on section 14 or perhaps the Minister might bring forward one of his own amendments later in the legislation to recognize the legitimate right of the consumer to be involved in some of the decisions of these boards and commissions.

I wonder if the Minister would reconsider either this amendment or a more appropriate amendment to another section.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): I wonder if I could just interrupt the proceedings briefly to inform the House that Mr. Justice Aikins has just brought down a decision finding the Act and the regulations of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia completely constitutional, and even the undeclared section of the Act completely constitutional.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: We have previously established that it is government policy that the individual marketing boards and/or commissions will be made up of representatives of the producers of the particular commodity with which we are concerned. The community-at-large's interest will be represented on the British Columbia marketing board.

The House earlier, in consideration of section 3, agreed that it would not be necessary or advisable in the legislation to specifically nail down the representation on the British Columbia marketing board. That would have been the time it might have been done.

Amendment to section 14 negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 24

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker, would you notify the Speaker that a division took place, and have it recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): This section, I'd say, is one of the more galling sections in this most atrocious bill. I'm specifically going to refer to subsection 4 of section 17. It reads this way:

"Where a person is convicted under this Act or the regulations, anything that was detained or seized under this section in respect of the offence is forfeited and becomes the property of the Crown in the right of the Province."

That's mandatory socialistic absorption, Mr. Chairman. For the life of me I cannot understand why the civil liberties people, the bar association, the human rights proponents in this province are not beefing up their backbones rather than their backsides and offering some constructive criticism over a section as appalling as this. It's a complete travesty upon the historic concept of property and individual rights.

The power is here to forfeit anything that is seized. It could be the car of an individual, his tractor, his trailer, his horse, his cart — and I suppose his wife, if she happened to be pushing the cart — and everything in it or on it — his books, his records.

It's not just enough under this section to fine him or her, or bring ex parte injunctions against them, but to expropriate anything that is seized, mandatory

[ Page 4802 ]

forfeit it to the Crown without any redress whatsoever to the individual. That's an absolute power of confiscation without compensation. I'd say it's real NKVD or KGB stuff — not the type of thing that we should be finding in the Province of British Columbia.

If you also take a look at subsection 5 of this section 17, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture made direct the disposal of anything forfeited to the Crown in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. Well, I suppose that's giving him the opportunity to hand out the lolly that was forfeited.

I think this bill, without any question, and certainly as exemplified specifically by this section, is devoid of democratic concept; is devoid of fairness; is devoid of that which for centuries has been considered to be the due process of law.

Subsection 6 is equally ridiculous. We find under it that there is not any responsibility of the board of people for loss or damage or deterioration of seized goods. This is just once again the socialistic one-way street, Mr. Chairman. Give it to the citizen every way the socialist possibly can and make these unholy tribunals almighty, but no redress at all. No redress at all available to the individual who happens to suffer under these sections.

Subsection 7 is also preposterously unfair. Under this subsection you can find that an innocent person comes to trial; according to the due process of law, he's acquitted, but as of right, Mr. Chairman, he's not entitled to have returned to him anything that was seized. As of right he's not entitled to have that. This again is a dramatic departure from all the historic concepts of criminal and civil justice, and, I'd say, legal morality and equity.

I'd say that even the most superlative of superlatives could not do justice just to explain how preposterous this section 17 is, specifically the subsection that I'm talking about now, subsection 7.

An acquittal pretty clearly means not guilty, but here an acquitted individual still has to come hat in hand and slither up to plead for the return of his goods and chattels that were seized.

I'd say all of these provisions are grossly unfair in this grossly restrictive statute. I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that all Members of conscience will support my amendment, which was in front of me a moment ago — here it is — which is to the effect that subsections 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall be deleted from section 17.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment is in order.

Mr. Wallace: I just want to speak in the strongest possible terms to support the amendment. The whole question of the basic of law that you're innocent until proven guilty, and that you should have some mechanism of appealing the decision, seems to be completely absent from this section.

I notice particularly that in subsection 6: "The Crown or any person acting under the authority of this Act…is not liable for loss or damage…"

So if someone, in his judgment, interferes with a person in the conduct of his business and it's discovered that the person so accused is innocent, apparently no matter what the person, under this Act, has done to damage or deteriorate the product concerned, the poor producer has absolutely no recourse whatever to some super snooper perhaps who, for less than valid reasons…. And I want to speak on other subsections of this section which are as bad or worse, but this whole section, including subsections 4, 5, 6 and 7, grants a degree of power over the individual without the individual having any real opportunity to recourse if his rights are invaded wrongly, or if in fact on further investigation his product is damaged or in some way devalued. I just don't think this kind of power is necessary.

As I say, I would like to speak on the earlier subsections later, but there's certainly real concern in the subsections we are debating because in the earlier subsection, anybody — "any person" — can be designated to take actions under section 17, and that "any person" presumably could be interfering with a producer, interfering with the transportation of his product, and ultimately it may well be that the producer is found to be innocent. In the meantime, what has happened to his product could be of serious economic and serious financial loss to him.

Again, the Minister has commented earlier on remarks in this debate that there are mechanisms of appeal to marketing boards, but in the most important area of all, where a person's rights and freedoms are being interfered with, there appears to be no appeal whatever and no recourse to anyone who takes misguided action against a producer under this section.

As I say, although the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has zeroed in on sections 4 to 7, there's a very great deal that has to be said in the same regard about protecting the rights of an individual in sections I to 4. I really feel that the Minister should reconsider and accept this amendment.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Yes. I'd like to rise in support of the amendment as well, Mr. Chairman, but there again, I will have further comments on the first sections of this subsection which I think are more onerous than this particular section.

An Hon. Member: It's always been this way.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: No, I won't say it's always

[ Page 4803 ]

been this way, Mr. Chairman. I won't use those words, but I will read from the previous legislation — the 1948 Act.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I did listen to the Members opposite. I allowed them to make their presentation, and I would appreciate an opportunity to make mine.

Under the old Act, section 5, it reads: "To seize and dispose of any of the regulated product kept, transported, packed, stored or marketed in violation of any order of the board," and that's the last word on this particular subject. There's nothing at all about what they may or may not do with it; nothing at all about the possibility of the producer being recompensed in any way at all.

There has to be something in the legislation that will make the producer aware of some of the risks that he runs if he is going to deliberately flout orders or regulations passed by his own organization. Remember, this is not some foreign body, this is his own organization. If, in concert, they have agreed to adopt a certain policy, and if an individual decides that he can further his own individual position by going against any of these rules and regulations, well, he does it knowing that he's running some risk, and the risk that he is running is in losing his product. Under the previous legislation, that was the end of it — he lost his product.

There's another reason why, under the legislation, there has to be power to do something immediately and not to argue on the roadside — when a truck is stopped, for example — to argue as to whether or not the product is to be held, detained, stored, allowed to go forward in spite of the fact that there's at least a suspicion, if not a case, that an order is being violated, There has to be something that will provide for the immediate disposition of that product because, in general, at least, we're dealing with a very perishable product. So the legislation now clearly says that the Minister of Agriculture has the authority to do something about this and, for the first time, goes on to say that the court, in its wisdom, may decide the producer's final right to redress, if he has any.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's the way I read it. It's up to the court: "may, in a proper case, if there is loss or damage arising from the destruction or deterioration of anything that was detained or seized, order the board or the commission that authorized the detention to pay compensation for such loss or damage." The court may order this, as you say, whether or not there's a conviction. If there is a conviction, well, then of course that's not the case. If there's a conviction, then he's…. As I say, there has to be something that will deter people from deliberately flouting the rules and saying, "Well, if we do get caught, it doesn't really matter." On the other hand, there has to be some protection for the producer if it is proven that he has not deliberately disobeyed one of the rules. In this, we have left it to the court to decide whether he does get redress. Mr. Chairman, we do not accept the amendment.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

Mr. Gardom: I gathered that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, Mr. Chairman. We all appreciate that fact, but there well can be a transgression of a statute that is not willful by an individual, and I am fully aware of the fact that the Minister appreciates that point.

He made a great thing of citing the old statute and said that under the former Act there was an opportunity to seize and detain products. There's a devil of a lot more under this bill, Mr. Chairman. Under this bill, where a person is convicted under the Act or the regulations — be it a willful transgression or an inadvertent transgression — anything that was detained and seized under this section in respect of the offence, is forfeited — anything. It talks about "any property, including books, records and other documents, and any regulated product, or any natural product, and any receptacle containing such product," and would certainly include conveyances.

Now, for goodness' sake, Mr. Minister, be practical for once. If a person is convicted of impaired driving in the Province of British Columbia, which is a far more serious offence than someone going down the street with a box of apples in the back of his truck, his truck is not forfeited to the Crown.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: It has to be.

Mr. Gardom: You say it should be. No, I don't think it should be. How preposterous this section is here, This is just the same type of a law that you'd find in the Soviet Union. There's no place for it in a democratic society — no place for it whatsoever. To come up with a spurious argument that the judge has power to do things…the power that you were referring to is where a person is found not guilty, where he is acquitted, and there, even under those extreme circumstances, you have not made it mandatory that his goods are returned to him. That's preposterous, absolutely preposterous. The man is acquitted, yet the court still, if it chooses, holds onto the stuff. How can you possibly say that this is being responsible?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 4804 ]

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 24

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker, would you draw to his attention that a division took place on the amendment and ask that it be recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, this section 17, to my way of thinking, gives those responsible for making sure that this law is enforced more power than I am sure the Gestapo had. Indeed, if they had any written regulation….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, it does. You just read the article. If the Gestapo had any written regulations during the war, I am positive that they would not be any more liberal than section 17, which is a section of search and seizure. I've spoken in this House before on this particular section. I don't care if it was in the old Act. The Minister will probably say that it was in the old Act. It still is too much power.

Let's stop and take a look at it; section 17(2)(a) says: "stop and detain any vehicle or other form of conveyance that contains, or that he has reason to believe contains, a regulated product." If he has reason!

Mr. Chairman, I could be transporting a truckload of booze from one province to the other; and the RCMP has to have more grounds before he can enter my truck than reason to believe that I might be transporting that booze, as the case may be. (Laughter.)

All right, you go ahead and laugh. But this is the situation. If a police officer has reason to believe that a poor farmer is transporting some apples or chickens or potatoes — or now any number of things: eggs, beef — just if he has reason…. So he thinks the poor farmer is transporting some of his merchandise and — bang! — he can open it up and seize it without a warrant — absolutely without a warrant.

I'm telling you that the police officers don't have that much power in searching out the drug peddlers in the province. They have to have a warrant.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: You mean to tell me that…? Now we're getting some legal opinion from the legal-beagle from Howe Street.

The officers, before they search and seize, must have some grounds to go on. We're treating the poor farmers in this province lower than the lowest of criminals. Lower than the lowest of criminals!

I happen to know of cases, and I have letters in my files, where farmers were stopped a year ago last summer for no reason at all. Their merchandise was seized, their vehicles seized. I'm telling you that we're in a situation where we're treating the poor farmer — I'll say it again — lower than the lowest of criminals. Just read on. Subsection (b) says:

"if accompanied by a peace officer, without a warrant, enter and search any vehicle or other form of conveyance and require that the driver or operator of the vehicle or conveyance take it to a place specified by the person searching the vehicle or conveyance so that all or part of the cargo may be there unloaded and detained for the purposes of subsection (3)."

As I say, the powers contained in this Act against the poor farmer transporting his own merchandise are astronomical; they're unbelievable. I'm sure that our legal friend from Howe Street recognizes this. He knows that the police officers don't have this kind of power. We don't even wire-tap when we have reason to believe, and good reason to believe, that there may be drug peddling going on.

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister Of Economic Development): You'd better get a lawyer in that caucus.

Mr. Phillips: If I'm wrong, and I haven't been proven wrong yet, Mr. Chairman, well, I'd be happy to hear the interpretation of this from the learned man from Howe Street, who is a specialist in defending the drug trade.

Section (c) — now you see he has to get a warrant — "with a warrant, enter any land or premises in which any regulated product is being marketed." I'm telling you that the laws pertaining to the marketing of our farm merchandise are stricter and more abusive than the laws we have dealing with the lowest of low criminals. Yet we want to inspire food production.

I would like to make an amendment to section

[ Page 4805 ]

17(2)(b) to change the wording from "without a warrant" to "with a warrant."

Hon. Mr. Stupich: In the case of this legislation we've looked at many sections and have tried to make them less objectionable than they were in the past. There's some concern in the press that we haven't gone far enough. The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has likened it to the authority that the Gestapo had. Perhaps he has made more of a study of their power and authority and may be more aware of it than I am. I haven't tried to compare the two. But I do say that we have tried to make it, in general, less objectionable than it was in the past.

In the case of a motor-vehicle, for example, it might be of interest to recall what was in the previous legislation. In that case I'll read directly subsection (i): "To require the person in charge of any vehicle in which the regulated product could be transported to permit any Member or employee of the board to search the vehicle."

You didn't even have to suspect that the vehicle had some of the regulated products in it. Any vehicle that could transport the regulated product could be stopped and searched in that particular case.

It's just not practical to stop a vehicle and hold it while you go and seek out a warrant, and then search the vehicle. For the sake of everyone concerned, it is much better to have the authority to stop it, as we do have in subsection (a) of this section. In this case we have inserted these new words: "…if accompanied by a peace officer." For the protection of all concerned, we have felt it advisable in the legislation to include that proviso. The official of the marketing board must be accompanied by a peace officer.

But if he's accompanied by a peace officer, he can proceed with a search at that point. Then if he finds that there's nothing out of order, he can let the vehicle proceed on its way rather than be obliged by the legislation to hold the vehicle until such time as he is able to obtain a search warrant and then proceed with the search, after which time the vehicle might be allowed to go on its way.

From the point of view and for the sake of everyone concerned, it would seem to be much better to proceed with the legislation as it is. The amendment is unacceptable.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 24

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker, would you draw to his attention that a division took place on the amendment and ask that it be recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Wallace: I would like to record my concern about this same section, for the reasons mentioned by the member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) but also for other reasons.

Section 17(1) really concerns me to the degree that power is designated to carry out some of these acts which we are concerned about in themselves. But under subsection (1) there is the power to designate that any person can exercise any power. Under subsection (2), when the so-called "any person" can exercise any power, the phrase used is: "reasonable grounds" to believe that a provision of the Act is not being adhered to.

The language is insufficiently clear, in my view, to justify the kind of actions that are empowered under some of these subsections. Further on in subsection (3) again, if during an inspection it appears that the Act or regulation is not being complied with, the power is given to seize and take away for the purpose of evidence.

In paragraph 1 of subsection (3)(b) again "reason to believe" is the phrase that's used. This "reason to believe" can be a reason believed by an individual who has been designated by a board or commission. It's possible, I suppose, in legal terminology that "any person" has a different interpretation from the layman's interpretation. But when you tell me that any person can interfere with my individual rights or demand to search my property, then I take that phrase "any person" literally to mean any person who has been designated.

I notice the Hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is grimacing.

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: Well, perhaps the Minister would care to get up in the debate and give the House the questionable merit of his own legal opinion. I notice that in this House, whenever we do get on to the subject of the rights and freedom of the individual, we get nothing but laughs and guffaws from the other

[ Page 4806 ]

side of the House. It seems to be the defensive mechanism which this government takes when it is under fire for giving unto itself power, which should concern every individual in this province. I am really quite distressed at the Minister's answer. Time and time again he goes back to how much worse the last bill was. I don't care how bad the last bill was; it's how bad this one is.

One of the lessons of history must surely be that if you do something gradually, if you erode the freedoms of an individual bit by bit by bit and do it very gradually, there is no end to the final point that is reached: having no freedom at all and having a police state. And as far as I'm concerned, section 17(1) gives boards and commissions the power to designate agricultural police, if that's what you want to call it. You can laugh all you like, but the fact is that we're here as non-legal people to defend the rights of citizens and residents in British Columbia.

I don't like what I read in section 17. Not a bit of it. I don't care if you have a peace officer which allows you to undertake a search. The fact is that the history of law and order has always been that you don't interfere with an individual's property or premises without having asked the judge to conduct a search.

It's obvious that in the minds of this government that the old idea that "my home is my castle," that concept has gone right out the window.

Don't tell me that this is a little better than the last bill, it certainly is from your comparative statements, but just because it's better than some that was bloody awful — if I may use the expression — then I would suggest that it's time this opposition shouted loud and clear about the increasing tendency for individuals to have their property, or their land, or their goods, or their actions interfered with by somebody who really doesn't have adequate authority.

This phraseology "reasonable grounds" or "has reason to believe" or "it appears that," et cetera, just isn't good enough, Mr. Chairman. I just don't think that this is the tenor of our time.

The tenor of our time suggests that there should be greater protection for the individual. We're living in an age of bigger and bigger government at all levels — municipal, provincial, federal. If there's one theme that you get put to as you travel round this province — and I've quite recently done just that — it is the fear and anxiety by many, many citizens all across this province that every government — this one, the federal government, municipal government — is getting unto themselves power which is frightening. It's so gradual and insidious that each time we or someone else complains, the answer always is: "Oh, this is better than the last bill," or "This is not meant to be this way," or, "The judge can use his discretion." The discretion has got to start right here in this chamber, not in the courts of law.

I just get very mad when I see these Members, who stood up and fought for their election to this House, no giving us all this laughter and mockery when we stand up and ask them to explain the contradiction between some of their election promises and what we see in this kind of bill, I got the same gobbledygook from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. MacDonald) when we debated the Energy Act. "Oh, yes, the power wasn't going to be used, and the Court could use its discretion." We've been through this time, and time and time again, and I get a little sick of the laughter and derision that comes from these benches when we're talking about something which is fundamental to the society we're in right now.

We've got too much big government. This is just another example, and I'm sick and tired of it. While we have every right as individuals to differ in what we believe, let's not have the fun and games and the laughter when we are presenting what, to us, is a very legitimate point indeed.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: This is the time for a rational and reasonable discussion of the legislation before us. Mr. Chairman, if Members want to take issue with some statements or some rulings that you might make, or some statements that I might make in piloting this legislation through the House, then I think that good debate on this legislation. But to start lecturing the other Members of the House, suggest, adds nothing to our discussion of the legislation before us.

Now with respect to section 17(1) to which the Hon. Member for Oak Bay drew our attention, and he expresses some concern that we are eroding the rights of the individual…. Mr. Chairman, if that is indeed what we were doing in this legislation, then there might be some real cause for concern on the part of all the Members in the House and the members of the community outside of this House.

But in almost every instance where the Members of the opposition have drawn our attention to this legislation, on comparing it with previous legislation we find that we are not proceeding with a further erosion of the rights of the individual. We are writing into the legislation protection for the individual that was not in the legislation previously. You might say that we have not gone far enough, but you cannot say in any of the sections to which you have drawn attention so far, that we are proceeding with a further erosion.

In the case of 17(1), if I may read: "…the Provincial board, or marketing board, or commission, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may subject to such terms and conditions as he may oppose" — the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may oppose, and then goes on to talk about

[ Page 4807 ]

the powers.

Again, under the old legislation — and this is to prove the point I'm making, that we are protecting the rights of the individual rather than further eroding — under the previous legislation the words were: "With respect to the marketing board, it could delegate its power to such an extent and in such manner as the board may from time to time deem necessary or advisable without any consultation at all with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council," so we are working to further protect the rights of the individual in our community.

Beyond that, if I may say in general terms, Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is setting out the pattern of action for the majority. It will be the responsibility of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in drawing the regulations to make sure that the majority in their conduct do protect the right of the individual.

Further in this legislation, we are for the first time providing that there will be a legal avenue of appeal for individuals who feel that the marketing board has not protected their rights as an individual. There will be that avenue of appeal.

So again I say that we are not further eroding; we are, in this legislation in almost every instance in which we have discussed it today and last Friday and on Thursday evening and perhaps for some time longer, further protecting the rights of the individual.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'm not a lawyer, but I notice in section 19 a phrase which worries me a great deal. It seems contrary to all of the usual principles of natural justice that are embodied in the laws of most civilized lands. And that relates to the phrase: "the burden of proof," which we find at the end of subsection 2 of section 19.

The proposed legislation we have before us suggests that "the burden of proof shall be upon the accused person." The burden of proof in this case being as to the area of origination of the natural product affected.

It strikes me that this is a very serious step to take, to put the burden of proof on the accused person. It should be on those instituting the proceeding or the prosecution to prove their case.

We could have a case where a person might be searched and seized under the pernicious provisions of section 17, their merchandise disposed of in ways that exact a far heavier fine upon them than contemplated in the offences section of this legislation, and their inability to defend themselves properly against that kind of charge because the burden of proof is upon them in this particular respect.

Therefore, I would like to move an amendment that subsection 2 of section 19 should be deleted.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Members, I would like to check to see that it is in order first before we proceed.

Hon. G.V. Lauk: I contend, Mr. Chairman, that because it negates a total subsection of a section, it is therefore not in order.

The Hon. Member or any Member in this House, if they so wish, could vote against the section in total.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, you might choose to wait, but if I could refer the Hon. Minister of Economic Development in his concern on this to page 513 of May where he notes:

"When a clause contains two or more subsections which are not mutually dependent, an amendment to leave out each subsection is in order."

Mr. Chairman: Would you give me a moment to consider the question?

Mr. Gibson: Surely. I have some more citations if you wish.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Mr. Chairman….

Mr. Chairman: Do you mind giving us a moment?

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: If there are any Members who wish to make comment on the point of order raised, I would….

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was in a rush to raise my point of order. I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment is in order.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, the opposition are batting 100 per cent in producing amendments that are in order but are unacceptable. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, you know that I can't, because you know that it would defeat the whole thing.

Mr. Chairman, the Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) suggests that I couldn't, and he's right; I can't accept this amendment.

[ Page 4808 ]

As you well know, an apple is an apple; an egg is an egg is an egg. How can you possibly prove where that egg was produced, unless it is the person with the egg in his hand — the producer, the member of that commodity group, if you like — who has the egg and who is in a position to produce a bill of sale or some documentary evidence that he did, indeed, get that particular agricultural product from some area outside of the area being controlled? There is just no way the person seizing the product can insist that it was produced in a certain area if the producer says no, it wasn't. So the person transporting it, or whatever, must be in a position to show that he has indeed obtained that product from elsewhere, This is not new. I understand the federal law relating to excise and customs duties works in exactly the same way. In hunting, again the burden of proof is on the person who has the animal to prove.

The amendment again, is unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the fact that this kind of thing is done elsewhere does not make it right. Indeed, what the Hon. Minister has done is outlined to us not only the difficulty of mounting a prosecution with this kind of problem, but at the same time mounting a defence towards that prosecution. When the thing is turned around in the negative, as it is here….

Hon. Mr. Stupich: All you have to do is produce an invoice.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't like the Minister's remarks that it is impossible to check on origins to pass unchallenged. But the fact is that there is a great body of regulation and comment on the so-called CCOs — Certificate of Country of Origin. He knows it full well. It applies in every case where there are sanctions involved, be it Rhodesia, be it in any other country. He knows full well that they can, of course, be circumvented by people who are dishonest and who wish to lie, but that is still in Canada the case. It is no justification for section 19(2), and I speak in strong support of the amendment put forth by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson).

The fact is here we are shifting the burden of proof entirely onto the person who has such products in his possession. To suggest that it is a simple matter for him to prove otherwise means, of course, that it is a simple matter for the Crown or the prosecution to accept the normal procedures of proof and proceed in the normal manner.

The arguments the Minister put forward could be applied in an infinite number of other cases, where the burden of proof is on the prosecuting authority and where the principle of justice is that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

To suggest that it is administratively more comfortable this way is undoubtedly to make a true statement. I'm sure it is more easy and more comfortable for the people in forcing this iniquitous Act, and in particular the iniquitous provisions of section 17. But that certainly is no justification for us accepting it at this time.

The burden of proof, surely, should be on the person proving that someone has broken the law, and a person who might or might not have broken the law should not be placed in the position of having to prove himself innocent.

Amendment negatived.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

Mr. Gibson: On section 20, Mr. Chairman, it notes that "no action shall be brought against any person who has acted…" and so on. I wonder if the Minister would be kind enough to advise the House what is the reason for this protection of the members of the board.

Supposing, for example, a member of the board may indeed have been acting in good faith in the performance of his duties, as the section stipulates, but still has been acting in such tremendous negligence that he, under ordinary thought, would be guilty of not having done a good job. I wonder if the Minister could explain to us why it has been felt necessary to give such blanket protection to board members.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, there have been many examples of officials trying to do their work and having their work interfered with by the people who didn't want that work done. Now this is what that section is in there for — to protect the officials of the marketing board affected. Again, it is nothing new and it has worked well in the past.

Mr. Gibson: But I still have the question: suppose there is actual negligence in the execution of their duties by board members. Why should they be protected in this way?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this section that protects them against negligence. That's something else. There could still be an action for negligence.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive, approved.

On section 23.

[ Page 4809 ]

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes, I'm a little confused by section 23(2)(a), Mr. Chairman, and I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment. It appears to me that there is here a possibility of a variation of previous decisions repealed, rescinded or varied by the provincial board or marketing board under this Act.

I wonder whether he would like to comment on what this does to previous statements by both the Speaker and himself regarding retroactivity. I raise it at this point and I also perhaps will raise it under 26, but I will raise it at this time now.

It appears to me that despite a decision of the court the original order might well be varied subsequently if the marketing board so desires, and I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment upon this aspect of it.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I just don't understand the reference to retroactivity in this section.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, the retroactive…. Well, let me read it. Section 24(1)….

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Oh, I thought we were on section 23. I'm sorry.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, excuse me. I thought we were on section 23 as well.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I thought section 23 had passed.

Mr. Chairman: I'm willing to accept section 23 as passing.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The point on section 24 — my apologies, Mr. Chairman — section 24(1), "the Natural Products Marketing British Columbia Act, being Chapter 263 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, is repealed." Notwithstanding that repeal, in other words, section 24(2), "notwithstanding subsection (1), an order, rule or regulation made by a provincial board or a marketing board under that Act, remains in full force and effect until repealed, rescinded or varied."

In other words any previous order can be rescinded, repealed or varied by a provincial board or marketing board under this Act, and I would like to know what happens in this case where there is a court determination taking place with respect to marketing board powers, and what might happen if the original order were repealed, rescinded or varied by a provincial board during the time that particular dispute might be before the courts?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, unless I'm very confused I think that argument, that position, has been thoroughly canvassed and thoroughly dealt with in earlier discussion. I don't think there is any new element in that particular section.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, do I take the Minister's remarks to mean, then, that there could be such rescinding, repealing or variation of an order?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: But not in the case where something is now before the courts.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Ah, yes, but….

Hon. Mr. Stupich: That's been clearly established.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That would have to be clearly established, but could it not precede the court's decision and go back to, for example, a decision made or an agreement made in the Minister's office?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, again I say there is nothing new in the line of reasoning adopted by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). It has been thoroughly canvassed. It has been, I think, adequately dealt with, and we have all agreed that nothing in this legislation can affect anything that is now before the courts.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, the reason I raised this, Mr. Chairman, is of course the provision of the amendment that we put in for 12(2) which would have guaranteed that very thing the Minister said, was defeated by the government itself, Under the circumstances I question 24(2)(a) because it appears to me that had the Minister's argument been valid, the argument he has just given us, the amendment to 12(2) would have been acceptable to him. I find it impossible to reconcile the two different positions he is taking.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, the reason that that amendment was rejected, and the House accepted the rejection of it, was simply that it was not necessary. The legislation is already quite clear in that respect.

Now, in section 24(2)(a), we are dealing with something quite different. We are simply saying that everything the marketing boards have done to this

[ Page 4810 ]

point will carry on. We are providing for some continuity in the time between the new Act taking place and the boards operating under the new Act. This will provide for continuous operation, and that's the only purpose of 24(2)(a).

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: This was an Act that we brought in last year. It's another of those Acts which was a mistake, and we said so at the time. I believe this led to illegal levies. Now I wonder whether the Minister would like to indicate whether that's the reason for repealing this Act, because there seems to be no other genuine reason for tucking it into this particular bill, namely the Natural Products Marketing British Columbia Act.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Cattle Industry Development Act was an interim measure. We knew at the time that it was an interim measure until such time as we could proceed with the amended Natural Products Marketing British Columbia Act. We are now ready to proceed with that. We have almost adopted it in committee and with that there will be no need to continue the Cattle Industry Development Act.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: In other words really its relevance to this Act is slight in the extreme. The relevance of the Cattle Industry Development Act, which I have in front of me, is not related really to the whole question of this superboard or things of that nature?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member did make reference earlier to levies, and as was admitted at the time, levies could not be levied legally under that particular legislation. Levies can be collected under this legislation, Provision is made for that.

Now I'm not sure if he has another point.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I have, and it is fairly straightforward, that is, this is the only commodity singled out in this particular piece of legislation and I am curious as to why. Certainly chapter 11 of the statute as we said at the time, led to illegal levies and any single cattle producer could overturn it.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: And some did.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Of course they did, as we told you they would because it was an illegal piece of legislation.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: And I've admitted it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Of course. I should hope you'd admit to it. That's why we've raised the issue. It illustrates very well, Mr. Chairman, how the government proceeds despite good council from the opposition, and how they get into trouble on that. Of course it could be overturned by any cattleman who wished to.

I gather that it's now being repealed simply because at some time in the future we may well have a cattle board or a beef board or something of that nature. I don't know whether we're going to have a marketing board for beef or what does he propose? Because to repeal it would indicate that something else is in line and I'd like to know.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying hard to find out what the Member's question is. This section does provide for the repealing of the Cattle Industry Development Act, under which the cattlemen are currently operating. The cattlemen for some time have expressed a desire to be able to form a commission. Once we have proceeded to develop a scheme for a commission, if indeed the cattlemen do want to proceed with the organization of a commission, if the scheme is developed and if it's acceptable to the commission, at that point in time, once the commission becomes operative then section 25 will be proclaimed. But until that point in time, section 25 will not be proclaimed.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On the title.

Mr. Gardom: On the title, Mr. Chairman, the Minister was talking a few moments ago about continuity and I certainly think there is a degree of continuity in this bill, because it certainly carries on with the bad and. It compounds it.

But the statute which will become a statute unfortunately very shortly is not properly named and I think it's misnamed. The bill is totally misnamed, Mr. Chairman, because the title does not express what it really does and we find this statute to become doctrinaire socialism at its very worst.

It's carte blanche authority to exercise the most restrictive powers anywhere in the free world over the products of the land, and the sea, and the lakes and the forests, and over any and all producers in this province, over any and all marketing methods. These are enormous and unparalleled powers to the state. They grossly infringe the rights of the individual and we find that he's without adequate protection or checks or balances, and we find that the citizen can be subject to processes for contempt of court, fines, jail up to six months, seizure of his goods and

[ Page 4811 ]

chattels….

Mr. Chairman: Order, Mr. Member. I do believe that you're going a little beyond the scope of debate on this section. The debate that you are conducting, Mr. Member, is one that was carried out in second reading.

An Hon. Member: No, he's right on.

Mr. Gardom: Well I'm just indicating to you, Mr. Chairman — I can assure you that I will not be long on my feet — indicating to you that this bill is improperly named and I'm complaining bitterly about the title.

The title does not indicate, Mr. Chairman, that a person can face confiscation of their products of their records, of their books and their conveyances without compensation. The title does not reflect that the subject can be subjected to all sorts of economic losses without any opportunity or means for redress. Yet we find the bill called, Mr. Chairman, the bill is called by this Minister: Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act. That does not for one second describe what the bill is.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, it contains the widest powers over natural products and the most restrictive anywhere in the free world and it should say what it is, Mr. Chairman, and it should be called the "Socialist Controlled Natural Products Act." I would therefore move an amendment be deleting the title as it now stands and substituting therefore: "Socialist Controlled Natural Products Act."

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, just before we proceed, I want to determine whether it is in order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: After saying all those nasty things about it, I thought he was going to go on and say, "but it is a good bill and we'll support it." This is the first amendment that I have felt really deserved some consideration in that socialism is the ultimate in democracy. However, since we've gone this far without amending the bill, I think we better keep our record complete and the amendment, even if it is in order, will not be acceptable.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 24

Mr. Gardom: When you report to the Speaker, Mr. Chairman, it would be appreciated if you would inform him that a division took place and ask leave to record the result in the Journals of the House. I wonder if the title as it now stands is against the Consumer Protection Act.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

An Hon. Member: Boo!

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: We've voted on the amendment to the title, but we haven't voted on the title yet.

Mr. Chairman: My error, we'll backtrack again, I'm sorry.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 165, Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 25

[ Page 4812 ]

NAYS — 16

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 173, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS INTERIM
ARBITRATION PROCEDURE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 173; Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): Section 2 has to do with the delay of negotiations, of bargaining procedures, in the Province of British Columbia by a period of two weeks.

The original Act provides that at this particular stage in negotiation we shall not have gone past the date of November 15. Yet this section provides an extension of that date to November 29. We would like to propose that this extension is completely unnecessary, indeed, even undesirable, and have an amendment we'd like to bring in to delete section 2.

Here are the reasons: it was thought by the department, as reported to us by the Minister, that there had not been enough time allowed for bargaining to take place. Conciliators had been appointed in the process, but not enough time had been allowed, and as the result it was hoped by the Minister that in this two-week period negotiations could be restored.

The truth is that in the period since the introduction of the bill, and since the period of extension of time has been public knowledge, negotiation, indeed bargaining, has almost entirely ceased. The fact is that out of the 68 districts to be negotiated, only two have made any motion toward continued negotiation.

With those two, we are proud to report that they have reached a conclusion, and an agreement has been made at some 15.8 plus a 0.4 for extra A bonuses, and in another area, 15 per cent plus a 1.6 per cent catch-up.

But there are the remaining areas which have clearly stated that since it is clear that the ultimate is going to take place in any event, that arbitration is what they look forward, they have broken off negotiations and have just allowed the two-week period to be an extension in confusion in the province.

It is not only an extension in confusion, it is an extension in costs. The figures which have been reported to us say that in 1973 the costs of negotiations in the province were something like $250,000. It is further expected, since the delay in negotiations, that the cost for this year negotiations could reach double that figure, or $500,000.

The delay of the date to allow extra conclusions also appears necessary to me because the history of negotiation and arbitration in the province, through the last few years, has been something like this: in 1970 both sides report a quiet bargaining year and therefore the lists of arbitrations are not readily available; but in 1971 out of the 68 settlements, 49 went the full route to arbitration. In 1972 there were four settlements that were carried over from 1971 — they were two year settlements; there were 38 arbitration settlements; there were six satellite settlements as a result of arbitration; and there were 26 settlements prior to arbitration. That was in 1972.

In 1973 there was one zonal settlement; there were the four settlements that took place even before conciliation. But in 1973 there were 48 arbitrations and 22 satellite settlements, which settlements, it has been explained to me, were made as the result of the arbitrations which took place in the other areas.

If you add those two together, that means that 48 plus 22 — some 70 settlements depended on arbitration. A clear trend established over the past few years that the teachers and the trustees chose the route of arbitration, so it seems completely unnecessary to give this extra two-week period in hopes that conciliation could take place.

Further, the two-week delay only serves to inflame the confrontation that exists. I think that in our school trustee-teacher relations we should as a Legislature try to add as much salve to the situation as we can rather than to add more grit to the confrontation.

Therefore, to have allowed an extra two weeks for name-calling and mud-slinging and various attitudes that take place between two sides who are negotiating served only to have deteriorated the atmosphere as far as even the classroom was concerned. The Minister herself has spoken many, many times about her responsibility to make sure that everyone is educated and that everyone is educated without interruption and that everyone is educated in the proper educational atmosphere — everyone, including exceptional children and including handicapped children but most definitely those in our regular classrooms.

[ Page 4813 ]

Granted, there has been no interruption in teaching and the classes are still there with the exception of a few rotating strikes which, by the way, when we asked as to whether or not these were legal or illegal, were considered by one of the disputing parties to be what they would call "civil disobedience." But, nonetheless, I'm glad to report that there has not been a cessation of teaching in the classrooms by and large in the province. However, the atmosphere under which this teaching is taking place is one of confrontation. To allow this section to pass just further inflames that atmosphere.

As a result, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move this amendment which simply deletes section 2 and renumbers the remaining sections. I have a copy here.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment, Hon. Members, is out of order. The intent of the amendment is to delete section 2. If you are opposed to section 2, you should vote against section 2.

Any further debate on section 2?

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, before going further on this section, a consequential question has been raised here, namely the efficiency or usefulness of this additional two-week negotiating period. I wonder if the House might hear from the Minister as to what seems to be going on at the moment.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Chairman, I was just waiting to hear the decision of the Chair first.

The Hon. Member who just spoke on behalf of the official opposition had the same thread of inconsistency running through his remarks with reference to this amendment as we found when he spoke on second reading of the bill.

If I recall in second reading of the bill, one of the points the Hon. Member made was that I was interfering with the collective bargaining process. Yet here we have what I consider a very honest and sincere attempt in this clause to extend that period so that there will be an opportunity for further collective bargaining to take place. Yet the Hon. Member, who obviously seemed to endorse the collective bargaining procedure in second reading, now says that you might as well forget about it and cut off that period instead of extending it.

I'd like to point out that not only do I feel there is great inconsistency there but I think he's missing the whole point when he assumes that no further conciliation will take place. I don't think he or I can make that assumption. I think that if we're both sincere — and I believe the Hon. Member is — we want to see the least confrontation take place between these two groups as possible. I think that if he were in my position he would want to give every attempt to see if some of those boards and teachers' associations can within the two weeks come to some agreement.

I do not stand here and say that this is going to work. The Hon. Member may be proved quite right. At the end of the arbitration time we may not have seen any movement at all. But to my mind, that is no argument to suggest that we should not give this attempt at this time.

May I also state that the delay which is inherent in this clause also gives time in the eventuality that those 68 boards will end up in arbitration. It does give the time for preparation for arbitration on what will be — I'm sure you will agree — a very new basis in boards with contracts completely open. So it does serve two purposes.

I can just reiterate that that two-week period is an honest, sincere attempt on behalf of the government to say to both of those groups out there: "Try to get together in some form of conciliation as we have seen take place in past years," even though, as the Hon. Member says, there were many areas that did head for the arbitration route.

Even though there is a major polarization out there, I think the Member would agree with me that, in talking to trustees and teachers, the hope of both groups would be to settle, if possible, in conciliation. I agree that when you have polarized thoughts on the whole matter, it is most difficult. But in these two weeks the government sincerely hopes that we may see some breakthrough.

Mr. McGeer: A question, Mr. Chairman. This may not be the best time to place it but I'm not sure where to ask it. If a contract is entered into in accordance with this and the contract is not kept, as for example with the Coquitlam school teachers when they closed the schools that day, is that automatically deducted from their salary or is some kind of instruction needed from the department? What happens in a situation like that?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: In a situation like that, I believe, Mr. Member, the board makes some recommendation on it, If they are in doubt, if they are within their legal grounds to handle it the way they think they should by vote of majority of their board, they usually get in touch with the department.

Mr. Gibson: In supporting this bill on second reading, Mr. Chairman, I suggested that the thrust of it was an attempt to make the existing law work in the unusual circumstances of confrontation of this year. I think this section 2 is an important part of that attempt to make the existing law work. It gives an extra couple of weeks to bargain after it has become clear that the confrontation situation has been resolved — at least for the moment — and it encourages voluntary agreements rather than forced agreements if that can be reached in any way.

[ Page 4814 ]

It strikes me that this section could do some good. I hope it will. I don't see how it could do any harm.

Mrs. Jordan: I wonder if I might ask the Minister, one question to follow up the question put by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), Would she look into the matter of the situation in Coquitlam and report back to the Legislature, perhaps tomorrow, as to what decision was made regarding the payment of the teachers at the time that they were in active confrontation?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I have no intention of instigating any action through my department at this time until I hear from the school board.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm not asking that the Minister initiate any action. I think the Legislature has a right to know, in view of this particular section where the Minister has been anticipating many reasons for bringing in this type of legislation which does interfere with bargaining in good faith and has retroactive clauses in it. We're only asking if you could bring a report to this Legislature as to what the decision is.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood the Hon. Member. I'm still not quite sure what you want me to investigate or bring back a report on. Could you explain that?

Mrs. Jordan: We're not asking you to investigate. We're just asking you to report to the Legislature on the decision the school board made in Coquitlam in regard to the teachers who participated in an illegal activity or a questionable activity. What was the decision in relation to their salaries?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Well, really, I do think there is nothing to be gained by trying to bring this right on the floor of the House at a time when, as one of your own Members said, there is a scene out there which, frankly, is a scene of confrontation. I think for you to bring it on the floor of this House at this time is simply asking to inflame it further.

If you want to know what the Coquitlam school board is going to do about that one specific situation, I suggest you phone the Coquitlam school board.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this question might be raised here or perhaps I'll raise it again under section 13. I do wish to question the Minister as to the date of the introduction of this bill and the references to retroactivity.

The situation arises, of course, out of the question period today when I think it was put across to the Minister during question period that, in actual fact, the school boards and the teachers themselves are required under existing legislation to appoint arbitrators at the present time. In theory, under the law of the land, they should be engaged in the process of lining up arbitrators and having this whole matter of dispute on salaries and other matters referred to arbitration. I wonder if the Minister could indicate to us why it was thought necessary to have this legislation up for committee stage after the day at which time arbitration was required by the previous law. I don't think it's a minor point; I think it's an important point of timing. If we were going to give them an extra two weeks for conciliation, as I understood it, surely we should do precisely that. Yet at midnight on Thursday last, the whole conciliation procedure stopped under the existing law, and arbitration procedures had to begin.

Why do we wait until Monday, some days after the arbitration procedures are meant to begin, before we discuss this legislation? There's nothing we can do about it now; I'm not suggesting we can turn back the clock. I'm simply saying that it's a very curious situation that we have under section 2 and section 13, whereby we've gone from conciliation and we are now in the procedure of arbitration. With this legislation, we're going to back up conciliation, and if that doesn't work, two weeks from now we go into arbitration again.

It seems a very, very cumbersome procedure. It is a procedure which, I think, has lead to more uncertainty and perhaps less willingness to negotiate on the part of the two parties we are concerned with than would otherwise have been the case. I wonder whether the Minister has in her mind any reason for the timing, which strikes me as being extremely curious and, I think, detrimental to a resolution of the problem.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I can assure you there's nothing curious about the timing, Mr. Member. I think you recall that we did bring this up for second reading when it passed in second reading. That was before the deadline time. I think I did point out to you in question period that the school trustees' president stated that it was an assumption that if the legislation was passed, they certainly would adhere to it. All I can repeat to you again is, yes, I would probably have been happier to see the whole thing brought through at the same time, but sometimes House business does not work that way. We were informed by the Attorney-General's Department, legislative counsel, that with the eventuality of the passage of the bill, there could be no problems with the working out of it.

I think that the teachers and the trustees have been following very closely this debate. They know that it was passed in principle in second reading. Our conciliators are very much aware of it. I haven't had either of the two groups express the concern you have; it seems to be quite clear to them. They're

[ Page 4815 ]

following the debate in the House, and when it is passed they will proceed. At the moment,. as it did pass second reading, I am advised that they are continuing on in the conciliation process.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I would like to record, Mr. Chairman, our objection to the use of one stage of the proceedings as being the stage at which they are considered terminal. The next thing we know, we'll have the government introducing bills and saying, "Because a bill is introduced, that's enough." We don't feel this is the right way to go about it. We feel the government has made a distinct mistake on timing in this whole debate, and on this bill we think that this has tended to contribute to the uncertainty of the school trustees in particular….

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Now, just a second. We feel that the timing of the bill certainly should have been thought out better by the Minister, and it should, indeed, have come in before so we're not in this position of going, at the present stage…. We're now in arbitration, according to the law.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Of course we voted for it. In essence, we feel that the thing should be voted for, but that doesn't mean to say that we feel the timing of the Minister has been good. We'll vote for this section, but that doesn't mean to say that we don't feel the Minister should have pointed out to her that the timing of the introduction of this bill, and the retroactive effect of some of its provisions, and the present provisions of the law, have tended to make the resolution of the problem perhaps more difficult than otherwise would have been the case had this whole bill been brought in one week previous.

Mr. Curtis: On this section, or the next one, I would like to ask the Minister to just briefly outline the mechanism by which conciliators are selected — within her department exclusively, or with reference to other departments of government.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Well, in the past, of course, as you know, the hope has been that a conciliator can be agreed upon by the parties involved. Of course, that wasn't the situation this year, and I understand there have been cases before where they've had to turn to the Minister, so in the Act it says, "the Minister must therefore appoint." In this particular case where we decided on 18, yes, we did work with the department of Labour to ask for assistance in appointment.

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, thank you, through you to the Minister. I'm sure one of the more embarrassing brief moments was when the Minister realized that one of the conciliators who had been named was, in fact, in Europe on an extended vacation — Mr. Lindholm, I believe. Could the Minister indicate how this sort of thing happens? It's a minor problem, but it's an irritant nonetheless.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I'm certainly not here to put the blame on anyone but myself. I accept the responsibility for that error.

Sections 2 to 4 approved.

On section 5.

Mr. Schroeder: Mr. Chairman, I am going to continue on consistency rather than inconsistency, as the Minister has suggested, and again object to the interference by the government into the procedure of negotiation which was in process.

We have the word of the Minister. On previous occasions — as a matter of fact, in 1973 — one of the sides in this dispute asked for changes in legislation governing teachers' salary bargaining at that time. The Minister refused to intervene at that date for two reasons: because existing legislation provided for provincial bargaining — and this is what the school boards wanted; and the second one to which I wish to address myself, is that changes in legislation cannot be made during teachers' salary bargaining. This is the edict that came out of the Minister's office. The Minister proved herself consistent with that thinking, right up until the introduction of this bill, because back in October 1973, when I asked the Minister in this House whether or not she was going to intervene in the dispute between the maintenance people and the administration in the school district of Abbotsford, the Minister clearly stated:

I have not taken any steps to date. I have planned a meeting to discuss this with the Minister of Labour. This does not mean that we are going to take any immediate action, but the two of us like to be kept aware of just how serious the situation is.

This is a clear example of the Minister's consistency at that date with her avowed policy of not interfering in teacher salary bargaining. The same thing happened in District 61, here in Victoria:

While the students were being denied the education which they are guaranteed by law, the Minister of Education saw fit to adopt an entirely passive attitude when, in fact, her primary responsibility was to do all in her power to have formal education resumed. She did nothing.

This was in a report from the Member for Oak Bay

[ Page 4816 ]

(Mr. Wallace) on February 12, 1973. At that date, the Minister still stood consistent with her policy.

However, here, all of a sudden, in the middle of a dispute, after the dates that had been established in the existing Act have already passed, the Minister steps in to intervene in the teacher-bargaining process.

We would like to say that this is inconsistency at its worst. I will not accept a charge of inconsistency that she just made recently to this side of the House. We do not condone the interference of a process of bargaining that is already in gear. section 2, to which I spoke, was one example of that interference. Here is yet another: in spite of the clearly defined policy of non-intervention by this government; in spite of the fact that negotiations are already in progress; in spite of the fact that the committee — of which the Minister and I were both Members — in spite of the fact that the committee took a clear and distinct stand against interference — Mr. Chairman, I think you remember the day — in spite of that, the Minister intervenes, interferes, changes the rules in the middle of the game, and empowers one side while disempowering — if I can use a new word — the other side. She is clearly moving in favour of one side in this dispute.

I think that this is reprehensible. I think that this cannot be condoned. I don't think that this is what the Minister really intended to do, and I think that an amendment is clearly in order. Let's just see how the interference takes place. It comes in the area of the appointing of persons to the arbitration board.

The arbitration boards under the existing Act can be appointed one member by either side, with the chairman to be appointed by each of those two members already appointed by either side.

It was possible under the previous Act for one side to appoint the same arbiter for D negotiations, hence eliminating the cost of negotiation and adding the expertise of one settlement to the next. There were some decided advantages to having one arbiter do the 68 settlements which needed to be taken care of.

Here the bill clearly states that you cannot serve on more than two salary arbitration boards — section 5. This means that the government has changed the position of the Act from one in which provincial negotiations were possible to one where provincial or regional bargaining is not possible, It is a serious change. I believe it is one which should not be taken by the government, particularly in the middle of negotiations.

I think that the process for changing the law is clearly established, and it should have taken place before September 20. This is an intervention which we cannot condone. As a result, I would like to move an amendment which would delete subsections (3)(a) and 3(b) and substitute, therefore, the words "and that he is willing to serve," and further, delete subsections (5) and (6), which would become completely unnecessary after (3)(a) and (3)(b) are deleted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I would like to comment on the amendment, which I find unacceptable. I would like to make a couple of comments prior to the Member bringing forward the amendment….

Mr. Chairman: Does it deal with the amendment? Otherwise, we will be back to the main section following….

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: All right. We had better leave it and go call the…. I will bring it up in the main section.

Mr. Chairman: Discussion on the amendment is open. I am just cautioning the Minister not to wander.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It does seem to me that the Member for Chilliwack has put his finger on a good point — that is this restriction to the number two.

I am not going as far as he suggested, and that is that one person should serve for the whole province. But, with your leave, Mr. Chairman, it might be beneficial if perhaps the Minister could say a word or two about why the figure two was chosen.

Previously, the average was, I believe, six. They served on six arbitration boards at any one time. I am not sure what the average was — six or eight, something like that.

I have amendments here to suggest that we strike a compromise and move it to four. The fact is that there are certain regions in the province which tend to be a unit, and there may be four or five or six school boards within them. The Minister has clearly chosen the figure two. It leads to difficulties, as we have mentioned, in terms of obtaining the arbitrators who have the experience, the qualifications and the desire to serve.

I would suggest that she give us a word at this stage as to why she has chosen the figure of two and whether or not she would consider putting it up to a figure not less than four. Or do we have to go the whole hog, as suggested by the Member for Chilliwack?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I think the House certainly, deserves an explanation of this. I did attempt to make some explanation in my preliminary remarks in the bill during second reading. However, there are details which should be mentioned.

I can assure you that the department spent many, many hours going over the number which we could appoint and still ensure that arbitration would work. We looked at 18. We had appointed 18 conciliators,

[ Page 4817 ]

and you could say: "Why not appoint 18 arbitrators?"

It became quite clear to us that 18 arbitrators could not complete the job in the time given to them.

Then we went down to four and five, as you suggested. But there were certain points which really worried us even about doing that.

Why did we feel that a maximum of two was necessary? As I said earlier, we could be faced with 68 school districts all canceling their current agreements. In the past, where a board took only one-half to one day to process it, likely there could be involved two to three days. Then let's remember that each teacher and each trustee nominates their arbitrator, and that arbitrator can serve on two boards.

But, as I said in the earlier speech, what is there to guarantee that they will all be serving on the same board? We could end up with one in Prince George scheduled for a meeting and finding himself also scheduled for a meeting maybe in the south. We have no idea if the boards and the school trustees would be appointing the same arbitrator. If we go into a whole area of permutations and combinations, we find that even with a maximum of two the arbitrators would find themselves in a situation which would keep them fairly busy, perhaps in lengthy travel, certainly in time.

Frankly, we were very concerned that unless we stuck to the maximum of two they may not be completed by the deadline of January 15. Then what would be the point of the whole Act when we were trying to ensure that there would be no further breakdown? We actually wanted to make this — how shall I say — as arbitration-proof as possible. There was no hidden meaning in appointing a maximum of two.

I was aware in making that decision that I would be accused of moving toward an endorsation of local bargaining. I had to take that calculated risk to make sure, in the long run, that arbitration procedure would work.

I cannot accept the amendment, because we spent hours going over figures. I can assure you that the maximum of two is the only way we can be assured that this will complete itself by January 15.

Mr. Gibson: I wonder if the Hon. Minister could assure the House that 34 qualified arbitrators — 34 chairmen, that is — (34 being 68 divided by 2) and the other members of these boards are in fact available, to her knowledge. I, too, am concerned about getting the arbitrations finished in time, but I am also concerned about the availability of personnel to conduct them.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I also asked that question. If we appoint that many, are they going to be there? I have to accept the information which was given to me, which was: "Yes, we should be able to find that number." We talked to people who have been involved.

But there is no point in me standing here and saying that they are going to be qualified and that it will be an easy thing. All I know is that I was given the assurance by my officials and others we consulted with that they could be found, Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 25

Mr. Schroeder: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the Speaker, would you please report that a division took place and ask leave to have the results recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

On section 5.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, the problem outlined by the Minister in her statement — for which I thank her, she attempted to deal with the question raised — was that you could have people serving on more than two boards and these boards could be scattered around the province. Well, the fact is that up until now we've had in practice arbitrators handling six districts, I believe, on the average and it hasn't been too bad. But it would be possible to write in some provision to the legislation which would restrict the boards on which they serve to the same region.

Therefore, I'd like to suggest that in section 5(3) and 5(3)(b) and 5(4)(b) we delete the figure "two" and substitute the figure "four" and add after the word "boards" — in both those subsections: "provided that all such boards are within the same

[ Page 4818 ]

region." In other words, change the "two" figure, as we see it in the Act, to "four" and to guarantee that if they serve on four, it's within the same region. This would get around the problem which the Minister mentions, It would tend to guarantee that we do get enough arbitrators — qualified arbitrators — and would undoubtedly improve the Act.

On the amendment to section 5.

Mr. Chairman: The proposed amendment is in order. Any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I think that this is a useful amendment. It goes some distance towards meeting the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), and at the same time, I think, does provide for enough arbitrators that we can be assured the process will be completed under the deadlines involved. As well, the provision of maintaining arbitrators within the same region would go a long distance towards simplifying the scheduling problems that the Minister described, I do support this amendment.

Mr. Wallace: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the bill itself was regrettable, that it had to be brought in. Time is the pressing factor that the bill was brought in. We've had it explained to us that these arbitrations will not be like the usual arbitrations since negotiations in about 68 districts haven't even got off the ground, therefore the field is wide open. I happen to believe that the bill as it stands is reasonable, or as reasonable as it can be within the circumstances under which it was brought in. I feel that we should proceed with the assurance that no arbitrator will serve on more than two boards.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Just two very quick points. If we did allow a person to serve on four boards, it means that there could be a possibility of 10 boards having to be scheduled in that period. I'm just trying to re-emphasize the danger of moving into four.

Also, regional appointment — which you are recommending in that — is really a direct interference in how arbitrators should be named. Also, how are you going to design a region? I'm just pointing out the difficulties. That is why, because I cannot see an answer to any of those points, we cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 5, 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

Mr. Gibson: On section 8, Mr. Chairman, the provision here is that when the salary arbitration board fails to agree, the chairman alone shall make an award within the next five days, by January 20. I wonder if I could ask the Minister why she felt it necessary to give this power to the chairman acting alone.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Well, that is, I believe, no change from the former Act. That is the way it is always applied.

Mr. Gibson: A five-day hiatus.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Yes, I think your fellow seat-mate can explain that.

Sections 8 to 13 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee wishes to report the bill complete without amendment and also report that several divisions in committee took place and that the, divisions be recorded in the Journals.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, shall leave be granted to record the divisions?

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 173, Public Schools Interim Arbitration Procedure Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.