1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

677 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mrs. Jordan — 677

Mr. Gibson — 679

Mr. Gardom — 680

Mr. McGeer — 682

Mr. McClelland — 683

Mr. L.A. Williams — 684

Division — 687

Mr. L.A. Williams — 687

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 688

Mr. McGeer — 691

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 691

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 694

Mr. McClelland — 694

Mr. Curtis — 697

Mr. McGeer — 697

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 700

Mr. L.A. Williams — 701

Mr. Gibson — 702

Mr. Wallace — 702

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have with us

in the House today a class of 32 students from Brooks Junior High

School in Powell River with their teachers, Rex Revfem and Betty

Williams. I ask the House to join me in — welcome.

MR. H. A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): They're not in

the gallery at the moment but within the hour we'll have 16 Saanich

Peninsula students from Royal Oak Junior Secondary School. I would like

the House to acknowledge their presence.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 3: Minister's office, $74,516.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): It's the 4,312th time of asking.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would like to welcome

the Premier back to British Columbia. I hope he hasn't sold us out. I

do understand he enjoyed the conference but he managed to take an

hour-and-a-half off at a very crucial time in the debate to have coffee

in the press room. We hope that that will benefit British Columbia as

much as it does the Premier's diet.

Mr. Premier, we're discussing the Minister of Agriculture's vote.

While you have been away there have been some serious allegations made

about this Minister's inability to carry on his responsibilities

without political interference from your office and in the form of your

person. As the Minister is aware, there are affidavits filed with the

House, there has been a series of questions that have not been

answered, and it is the intention of the Members of this opposition to

have answers to these questions.

What is at stake, Mr. Premier, in regard to your Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is the integrity of government and the

manner in which the word of a Minister of this government and the Crown

of British Columbia can be accepted.

This has very far-reaching implications, because we abhor the thought of what

we have apparently seen, which is: under-the-rug dealings and negotiations by

the Premier; interference with the Minister's duties by the Premier; the

putting of one of his own Ministers in an untenable situation where his word

is questioned.

He's had to change his word and he's had to interfere in a

duly-elected marketing board's activities on the basis of political

muscle at your instructions rather than on the basis of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. Member to please address the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't want to neglect you. You're looking very well this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And you're looking very well too, Hon. Member.

(Laughter.) I would also remind the Hon. Member that we are discussing

vote 3 and to address the questions to the Minister of Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Help! (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: I wish, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of

Agriculture was looking as well as you are, because this Minister has

been put under an incredible strain. He's showing evidence of the

strain. He is no longer confident in his commitments. What is even

equally as disastrous as the question of the integrity of the

government is the effect that this has had on other marketing boards

and on the producers in British Columbia.

I would draw to your attention this morning the situation regarding

the Interior vegetable producers as well as the vegetable producers in

the whole of the province. This group of people are very much involved

in the inability of this government to separate its political and

partisan philosophy from what its responsibilities are as government.

I mentioned in the previous sections of this debate where the

Minister had, through his party, got himself heavily embroiled in

commitments to break the one-desk selling agency in British Columbia.

He also, whether it was his commitment or his party's commitment,

became involved with the problems of the Interior vegetable producers

where they were promised, as an executive, Mr. Chairman, before the

last election, that there would be an income-assistance programme and

that they, in particular the tomato growers, would be the first to

receive this benefit.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has stated in this House that he

makes political decisions and partisan decisions and that's his way. He

has again entwined himself in a spider web of conflict between his

partisan views and his responsibilities as Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the author himself.

[ Page 678 ]

MRS. JORDAN: The authors, Mr. Woody, are the Interior tomato

growers themselves. If you're interested, and it would be a very good

thing if that Minister was interested in what the people are saying, he

would go up to one of these conventions, as his colleague didn't, and

explain to these producers why they were given partisan political

commitments before the election and relegated to the bottom of the heap

after the election.

The only association that Minister has with tomatoes, Mr. Member, is

with those that are thrown at him by the small woods people and the

producers in this province. I would suggest that the indications are he

will become even more familiar with tomatoes, but they may not be of

the best quality. We'd like to save those for sale.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, before the election your

party committed to the president of the Interior Vegetable Marketing

Board that there would be an income-assistance programme and they would

be first on the list. They not only were neglected before their

convention but they were neglected at their convention when the

Minister didn't come, as he was expected to do, and by the fact that he

again put his own employees in a most embarrassing situation.

Before the convention the Interior Vegetable Marketing people had

received the word that if they wanted to take

part in an

income-assistance programme in British Columbia, they would have to

unite with the Coast Vegetable Marketing Board.

Mr. Minister, that was not something you told them or your party

told them before the election. This is another example of the arm

twisting that is going on, if not at your own initiative then from the

initiative of the Premier of this province.

It's extremely difficult to understand not only the type of arm

twisting that's being used but the schizophrenic attitude in the arm

twisting. The Premier's known to want to break one-desk selling in the

fruit industry, and yet it appears through you and your actions with

the Interior Vegetable Board that he wants to force another

agricultural sector into a one-desk system.

This has resulted in fear of political interference in what is in

fact in the best interests of the vegetable industry and agriculture in

this province, and also tremendous uncertainty about whether the

Minister even knows what his government wants.

Mr. Minister, this arm twisting on the Vegetable Marketing Board has

met with a complete rebuff on their

part in view of the lack of

advantages that your people, or you as Minister, have been able to

present to them. Why should they give up their autonomy; why should

they give up their already lucrative market which they've achieved on

their own?

All they can see with your programme is the centralization of

control and an increase in the expense to the producer in the Interior,

which you seem to want to subsidize out of the taxpayers' pockets for a

philosophical reason rather than a practical reason of supporting an

industry and providing quality, and hopefully reasonably priced,

vegetables to the people in British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, the Interior vegetable industry is not massive in size

but it's vital in importance. The tomato growers and tomato production

are the basis of our Interior vegetable industry. You casually

dismissed them during your own statements under this vote by saying

that you'd sent them a letter about income-assistance participation on

their part.

Mr. Minister, you didn't even send them that letter until the

president and a strong member of your own political organization — and,

I would add, an extremely fine man — got up at that convention and

literally tore a strip off your inability to meet your commitments and

the strong arming that was going on in their industry in order to even

take

part in any type of assistance programme.

That sort of attitude, Mr. Minister, coupled with the questions that

lay unanswered before this House at this time, can do nothing but

encourage more and more people to drop out of the vegetable industry.

I would like a commitment from you this morning, Mr. Minister:

first, that if the rest of the opposition will demand it through you

and in concert with the Premier of this province, you will clear up

this tragic shadow that lies over this government and in turn lies over

the people of British Columbia and which, in fact, is dipping into the

pockets of the producers of this province.

The second point I'd like from you, Mr. Minister, is a commitment

that you will meet your commitment to the vegetable producers as a

whole in this province — and in this specific instance, to the Interior

vegetable producers.

Don't just send the tomato producers a letter. You know, with the

Canadian mails it could take years to get there. Get up there. Get

negotiating. Get this programme into effect now. They see their dairy

counterparts receiving their cheques; they want their cheques, Mr.

Minister.

They only produce in about a five-month period of time during the

year. They're facing incredible fertilizer costs, machinery costs and

increased insurance costs, all as a result of this government's

actions. Yet they see nothing but backtracking, a confusion of

political webs and the thought of arm twisting if they're going to be

able to have what in fact is their right in accord with this

government's policy.

Then, Mr. Minister, the asparagus growers want to know what you're going to do.

The collision course that the Minister of Consumer Services (Ms. Young) and you are on has been

[ Page 679 ]

mentioned, and that's an area where there is going to be further collision.

The potato growers: they want to know also, Mr. Minister, and we

want a commitment from you, about what you're going to do in terms of

detailed research in order that this industry can take advantage of

agricultural land and climatology studies so that they can expand their

industry. They want to know when you are going to make a commitment on

the processing plant for vegetables.

I hope, Mr. Minister and Mr. Chairman, that we won't have to spend

the whole weekend in this chamber to get some answers on the overall

cloud of this government and on some of these specific questions.

I would assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this government must answer

and this opposition is prepared to do its part to see that truth is

brought before this House and the people of British Columbia.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, this has been a very good debate on the Minister's salary vote.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Just fair, just fair.

MR. GIBSON: Just fair in some respects, Mr. Premier. I'll come to that in a moment. But many agricultural matters have been covered well.

The egg boards have been talked about and the production problems

there, and the distribution of production of the broiler board, and

there has even been a reasonable debate on the question of to what

extent there should be political influence over the operations of these

boards. These things have been covered reasonably well.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have been absolutely stone-walled on the basic

question, on the most fundamental question that has come up in this

debate: that's the question of the integrity of the government. That's

the question of whether or not there's a cover-up going on here for

things that happened in 1972 and for things that happened earlier this

month. I'd like to go at it in a slightly different way this time and

hope that perhaps the Minister might see fit to give us a little more

clarification.

The apparent situation as it's been presented to this House comes in

two parts. It comes first of all on the Egg Marketing Board and a

situation involving Messrs. Kovachich and Samsom in October of 1972.

There have been read into the record of this House sworn affidavits by

two persons on the Egg Marketing Board who attended a meeting on

October 26, 1972 — Messrs. Brunsdon and Unger.

The essence of the statements of those men is that they, the board, were directed by the Premier to do certain things.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): You're reading yesterday's speech.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not reading yesterday's speech, Mr. Member, but I'll read yesterday's speech if I have to until we get some answers.

So it seems pretty clear what happened at this meeting according to

the affidavits, Mr. Chairman, that have been put before this House. And

what happened....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Got your bags packed today?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: What happened at that meeting was that the board was muscled up by the government. It's just that simple.

MR. LIDEN: You're kidding, you're kidding. That was in yesterday's speech.

MR. GIBSON: So an arrangement was reached in due course in an

amount with respect to Mr. Kovachich. We don't have the Minister's

remarks with respect to Mr. Samsom, but in respect to Mr. Kovachich an

arrangement was reached in an amount that was sanctioned by the

Minister. There was a reduction of charges levied against him by the

egg board from $21,000 down to $7,500. No question of those details.

Now in February, 1974, we find affidavits to be sworn out which

detail these circumstances and then we have statements from the Hon.

Premier which are directly contrary to these affidavits. The

affidavits, as I mentioned, state that the board was ordered by the

Premier to do certain things and the Premier said: "They were not asked

or ordered or suggested to be ordered to do anything."

The affidavit said that the board was told to draft an agreement, and the Premier is quoted in Hansard as saying, "I told no one to draft an agreement."

The Premier is also quoted in Hansard as saying that he did not order any solution in this Egg Marketing Board case.

So we've reached the point where there is an obvious contradiction

between the sworn statement of two citizens of British Columbia who had

responsible positions on a marketing board and the statements of the

Premier.

So throughout this debate, the Minister has obviously been embarrassed because he is a witness to

[ Page 680 ]

these things. The memory of the marketing board

member seems to be pretty good, and the memory, of the Premier seems to

be pretty good. The Minister has been caught in between and his memory

is not any good at all. It's been a very faulty memory.

That's the egg side. Now the broiler side. There's no long time

lapse here. There's nothing about 1972 with respect to the broilers.

The broiler question is 1974, and the short history here seems to be a

wish to open up and enlarge Interior and northern quotas, which is very

understandable and proper.

But then a meeting was held on February 5, and again the same thing.

We are given to understand by another two sworn affidavits by two board

members that there was more muscle applied to another board — exactly

the same pattern that happened a year-and-a-half ago.

Then again in late February, we find these affidavits coming in one

way and the statements of the Premier again exactly contrary.

The affidavits quote the Deputy Minister of the Department of

Agriculture as saying that Mr. Barrett had ordered certain quotas to be

given related to broilers, and the Premier saying in Hansard : "I did not order anyone to be given any quotas related to broilers."

We have the affidavit again quoting the Deputy Minister of

Agriculture as saying that Mr. Barrett had directed that a committee of

three be appointed to determine allocation of broiler permits on the

basis ordered by Mr. Barrett, and the Hon. Premier saying, again in Hansard : "I did not direct that a committee of three be struck to allocate broiler quotas." Exactly opposite information.

Mr. Chairman, any evidence the House can receive on how to resolve

this contradiction — which inevitably casts a cloud either on the

persons who swore out the affidavit, or on the Premier, because these

things are directly at odds and their memories both seem to be pretty

good — would be a good thing, it seems to me, and it should be

something the government would welcome.

Let's look at the persons at those meetings. On October 26, 1972,

the persons at the meeting, according to the affidavit, were the

Premier, the Minister of Agriculture, Messrs. Janzen, Unger, Wall,

Morgan and Brunsdon from the Egg Marketing Board, and Messrs. Peterson,

King, Pope and Gilchrist from the department. Of the five outside

non-government persons at that meeting, we have sworn affidavits from

two of them.

Let's look at the meeting of February 5. There were Messrs.

McAninch, Stafford, Liedtke and Harbidge for the marketing board, and

Messrs. Peterson and King, again, Mr. Wood and the Minister of

Agriculture. Of the four outside persons — the four non-government

persons at that meeting — we again have sworn statements from two.

Out of the nine outside people at those meetings, affidavits are

available from four. Those affidavits are in harmony, and they all

paint the same picture.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Attorney-General, that's more evidence than we have from the government, I'll tell you that.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that while we have heard from the public

members at these meetings we have not had an opportunity to hear in any

way from the seven public servants at these meetings. The public

servants perhaps have a better recollection than does the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Identical.

MR. GIBSON: Is there not some way, Mr. Chairman, that the

Minister would find it helpful to his memory and helpful to the whole

perspective that the public will have on this...

MR. LIDEN: You're the guy who needs help.

MR. GIBSON: ...to clear up the name of the government, to

find some way that these public servants can give their version of

these meetings?

Once again there is the case for a public inquiry. If there is not a

public inquiry, once again will the Minister not do the simple thing

and speak to his officials, who are immediately available to him? There

is no problem at all in speaking to his officials. The Minister can

speak to his officials in detail on this subject in the next 10 minutes

if he wishes, and speak to those officials and come back and say to

this House that his officials tell him that the account of the

affidavit of the meeting of October 26, 1972, or the meeting of

February 5, 1974, is correct, or incorrect, in this particular and that

particular. Mr. Chairman, there is a bill of particulars here and it's

very specific, and it seems to me that this House....

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): You're practising law without a licence.

MR. GIBSON: It seems to me that this House has the right to

an answer on every one of the points made — the very serious points

which impugn the name of the government in these specific bills of

particulars.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): We had hoped, Mr.

Chairman, that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture would have responded to

the remarks of the lady Member (Mrs. Jordan) and also the remarks of my

colleague for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), but the questions

that are still unanswered in

[ Page 681 ]

this debate seem to be about six in number.

Is this memorandum of the Egg Marketing Board of January 31, 1974,

which says that the agreement with Mr. Kovachich was drawn on the

instructions of the Hon. Premier, true or false, Mr. Minister? Was that

agreement drawn on the instructions of the Hon. Premier?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, that's the October, 1972, one but it's referred to in this memorandum of January 31, 1974, Mr. Member.

The memorandum further indicates that the terms of the agreement

with Mr. Kovachich were those insisted upon by the Premier. That is

what the Egg Marketing Board says, Mr. Minister. Do you consider that

to be true or false?

Mr. Minister, did the Premier say there would be no court action

against Mr. Kovachich? Did he say that? Yes or no. Did that consist of

an order to the Egg Marketing Board from the Premier, Mr. Minister? Yes

or no.

Did the Premier say to Mr. Kovachich, and/or to the board, "I'll

kick the 'censored' out of you," or words to that effect? Yes or no.

We have to remember that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture was present at all of these meetings.

Did you set the figure, Mr. Minister, at $7,500 for Mr. Kovachich?

Yes or no. And if you didn't set it, Mr. Minister, who gave that figure

to your Mr. Pope? Will you answer that?

Did the Premier say, Mr. Minister, that he would deny everything if

it was ever repeated out of his office? Did he say that? Yes or no.

You talked about political interference, and in the most modern

edition of Funk and Wagnalls, interference is defined this way: "To

intervene and take

part in the affairs of others; especially to

interpose oneself without invitation or warrant." Did that occasion in

this particular instance?

Interjection,

MR. GARDOM: Oh, that doesn't give him unlimited powers

though, Mr. Attorney General. You see, this is how you're missing the

whole point of the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did interfere.

MR. GARDOM: I'd ask if the Hon. Minister of Agriculture is

prepared to request that Mr. S.B. Peterson and Mr. Maurice King file

affidavits, or give statements to the House in response to the sworn

material of Mr. W.H.L. Brunsdon and Mr. John Unger.

It's very interesting to take a short look at the Natural Products Marketing

Act . Under

Section 4 of that statute we see that the "purpose and intent

of this Act is to provide for the promotion, control and regulation in all respects

of the transportation, packing, storage and marketing of natural products."

That's the purpose and intent of this Act. The Act gives the power, and

it doesn't give it to the Minister, per se, or to the Premier, per se.

section 5, it says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may vest in

any provincial board, "any or all of the following additional powers,"

under 5 (d), "to fix and collect licence fees, and to fix and collect

from such persons fees for the services rendered, or to be rendered by

the board, and to recover such licence and other fees by suit in any

court of competent jurisdiction." But the power to vest in any board is

that of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, not the power of the

Premier. He does not have those powers at all.

Under

section 9 dealing with regulations, Mr. Minister, it says the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council "may make such regulations as are

considered necessary or advisable for carrying out the purpose and the

intent of the Act." The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make such

regulations as are necessary, and so forth, for carrying out the Act,

and may vest in any board such authorities and powers as are considered

necessary or advisable. The power there to make those regulations or to

vest in a provincial board authorities and powers are those of the

cabinet — not those of the Premier and not those of the Minister of

Agriculture.

The question was well stated by the lady Member this morning as to

whether or not the government acted with integrity, whether or not the

Minister has acted either within or beyond the confines of his duties

and responsibilities.

The question is whether these affidavits are to be believed, or are

to be disbelieved, or are to be tested in another manner. That has been

suggested over here. We recommended that there be an independent

tribunal set up under the Public Inquiries Act . That is why we have a

Public Inquiries Act in the Province of British Columbia.

So far, Mr. Chairman, there has been no evidence submitted by the

Minister which would contest the material in these four affidavits.

But, in fact, evidence to the contrary. We have sworn statements, four

affidavits — corroborative, essentially, of each other. The material in

these affidavits per se has not been refuted by the Minister. The

material that is in the affidavits has been supported by memoranda from

the Egg Marketing Board that these agreements were at the insistence of

the Premier. And the agreements themselves and the memoranda themselves

certainly, without question, unqualifiedly indicate that favourable

treatment did ensue.

You know, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Minister of

[ Page 682 ]

Agriculture, to have an agreement it takes two

sides not only ready, willing and able to agree, but freely ready,

freely willing and able to agree. You have to have consensus ad idem

or meeting of minds. And that's one of the tests and ingredients in

determining whether or not there is any true and valid agreement, or

true and valid contract.

But that meeting of minds, Mr. Minister, has to be arrived at

without compulsion, without duress, and without improper pressure. Did

that happen here? It doesn't seem, from the evidence, that it did. What

happened seemed to be a situation of force feed.

Mr. Minister, it could probably still be argued that the agreement

that was entered into was ultra vires, certainly ultra vires the Act

because it wasn't one that was entered into freely and willingly, and

perhaps it still could be subject to court review. I don't know; I say

perhaps.

I say again, and to what extent, how powerful was this insistence of

the Premier? Was it an offer that Mr. Kovachich and the board couldn't

refuse? If that's the situation, isn't that government by godfather;

and that's wrong. That is why the question of governmental integrity

has arisen in this debate.

We can recall that when the Premier was dealing with the Member for

Atlin (Mr. Calder), the Premier indicated the very high degree of

propriety that he expected from his Ministers. He indicated and stated

that cabinet Ministers have a very high and moral obligation to not

only govern and act within the confines of the law, but appear to do

so, and they have a higher and greater degree of responsibility than is

imposed upon any Member of this Legislative Assembly. And they have to

act according to very high moral guidelines.

I wish that the same test was applied here.

The Premier imposed upon the Member for Atlin the highest fine in

the history of this province. He removed him from cabinet; he cut his

salary thousands of dollars — $21,000 I understand — because the

Premier did not conclude that the Hon. Member told the Premier the

truth. And this is the issue here, Mr. Chairman! Who is telling the

truth?

There weren't any sworn statements in the Calder case. There are

here. There wasn't any corroborative evidence before the people of

British Columbia or before this House in the Calder case. There is here.

The capacity to abuse power in the many statutes that have been

enacted by this government since it has taken power, since it has come

into office, have been criticized by the whole of the opposition and by

the majority of the people in the Province of British Columbia.

You stated throughout "trust us." The opposition said throughout,

"Don't take those powers if they're not going to be used." You said,

"We might not use them, trust us." But the power that appears to have

been abused — I accept the word from the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) — the power that appears to

have been abused here didn't even exist in the statute. There is

nothing within this statute granting that power. And still there seems

to be an excess of power, abuse of it, and we consider it to be a very,

very serious matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, but before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would

again draw to the attention of the House standing order 43: "Mr.

Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the

House or of the committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in

irrelevance or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the

arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to

discontinue his speech," et cetera.

And also standing order 57....

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, you

don't need to read the rules of the House to me. You'd do very well to

read them yourself and abide by them. You're the one who's being

tedious and repetitious. We're dealing with the Minister of

Agriculture's vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. And also to standing order 61

(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to

the item or clause under consideration." I would ask the Hon. Members

as they continue that they observe the standing orders of the House in

spirit. Thank you.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has been asked a

number of questions during the last two or three days. He seems to have

difficulty with his memory, and he's had some difficulty with his

tongue. It involves the Premier as well. And, Mr. Chairman, I don't

know how essential it is for you to read standing order 43, but I can

tell you one thing that took place in this chamber before you had the

honour to be a representative here. That was the time the Premier, when

he was the Leader of the Opposition, asked the same question 67 times,

for 3 1/2 hours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, if the Hon. Member is convinced that....

MR. McGEER: And I haven't asked the same question 67 times,

Mr. Chairman. I can tell you that the standards that were established

before you came to the House by the Members who now sit in government

and ask you to invoke standing order 43, were established by them when

they asked the same question 67 times. And you weren't here, Mr.

Chairman, and we were.

[ Page 683 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, is the Hon. Member...?

MR. McGEER: We don't need lectures from the chair or from the cabinet as to what tedious and repetitious is in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would leave it to the conscience of the Hon. Member to make that decision.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan): There is no hurry in

this House when the matter of integrity is being discussed.

We can take all day, all weekend, all month, and all year. Mr. Chairman...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Off we go into the wild blue yonder.

MR. McGEER: ...we are not bothered about the problem of tediousness and repetitiousness.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): You're the expert.

MR. McGEER: We are bothered about the integrity of Members of

the cabinet who dearly wish to forget some of the things they did

within two weeks of taking office. Many times those Ministers stood in

their places and appealed, through us, to the public to trust them.

Many times have they made insidious comparisons between the former

administration that was closed in secret and untrustworthy, and theirs

which was open and aboveboard.

As the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) so well reminded

the cabinet Members, one of their number was dismissed. The only charge

laid against him was lack of candour. Yet, according to a sworn

affidavit, the Premier of the province promised to lie about any

repetition of statements made outside his office.

The Premier, in answering questions in this House, denied the

allegations in the affidavit. The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) once more summarized precisely the issue: the discrepancy

in statements by citizens of British Columbia in affidavits sworn

before authorities of justice in British Columbia, and statements of

Ministers of the Crown given in this Legislative Assembly.

We have asked the Minister repeatedly to clear up this cloud which

hangs over the Premier and himself and the government. He's refused to

do so, pleading amnesia. We've asked him, as an alternative, to support

a public inquiry and he's told us that is unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, this morning the Minister has another official, who

was present at those meetings, sitting close to him. The Minister can

consult with him about what went on. Earlier in the week he was too far

away in Saskatchewan. He missed an opportunity for three running days

to consult with another person who was present at those meetings, who

was also sitting next to him — if his own memory was such that he could

not give frank answers to this House.

Obviously, if one set of facts is presented in sworn testimony as

these four affidavits have done, and another set of facts is presented

by the Premier and Minister of Agriculture, we can't just let it go at

that. We must seek better answers or opinions from others who were

there.

There are many routes. The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) has suggested the obvious and best one. But, Mr. Chairman,

before we press in a more formal way for this, or before we take any

other action in the House, we appeal once more to the Minister to give,

us a frank and candid answer about what happened at those two meetings

where these four affidavits have given one account of the events.

Mr. Chairman, did the Premier at that meeting threaten to kick the

"censored" out of the Egg Marketing Board if they failed to do the

bidding of himself and the Minister?

Did the Premier say he would deny that conversation if anyone

discussed it outside his office? Did the Minister of Agriculture send a

representative of his department to see the members of the Egg

Marketing Board and persuade them to revise the figure down to what he

considered acceptable, namely $7,500?

In the matter of just last month with the Broiler Marketing Board,

were similar tactics used in which the Minister told the Broiler

Marketing Board what their decision must be?

Those are simple, straightforward questions that can yield to a

simple yes or no answer. Once more, will the Minister get up now and

tell us "yes" or "no" to each one of those specific questions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now I would caution the Hon. Members that

continued repetition under this

section could constitute a violation of

standing order 43, and I would make the point that while the Members

are concerned about integrity of government we must also be concerned

about the integrity of this Chair. Therefore, I must apply the rules as

they are given to me.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, are you accusing me of tediousness and repetitiousness before I even open my mouth, Mr. Chairman?

[ Page 684 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's anticipation.

MR. McCLELLAND: It sure is anticipation of the worst kind.

Mr. Chairman, I promise I will bring an entirely new subject to this

debate. How's that?

We stood here and hoped this morning that the Minister would stand

in his place and promise us that he would at least give us the

assurance of an inquiry into the questions that have been raised; and

to the shame of this House, that hasn't happened.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that there are some serious

repercussions to this lack of action and this lack of answers. I will

speak later if we don't get any more answers, but briefly I just want

to bring a new item to the attention of the Minister; it has to do with

a resolution passed by the British Columbia Egg Producers' Association.

The British Columbia Egg Producers' Association is in serious

concern about the political interference by the Minister and by the

Premier of British Columbia. I want to read to the House the resolution

passed at a meeting held in Abbotsford, British Columbia, on the

evening of February 26, 1974. The resolution states:

"Whereas the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board has

adopted and implemented certain policies which, in effect, have

resulted in preferential treatment and special consideration being

given to Interior egg producers at the expense and to the detriment of

the lower mainland egg producers, and

whereas the Minister of

Agriculture, Hon. D. Stupich, and the Premier, Hon. D. Barrett, have

publicly denied ever using any influence, pressure or coercion on the

board or any of its members to bring about such policies or such

action,

be it resolved that we, members of the British Columbia Egg

Producers' Association instruct the board to: 1) recall any quota or

permits issued to Interior egg producers since October, 1972, and make

this quota available by purchase to Fraser Valley producers. Further,

be it resolved that we instruct the Board to: 2) Return to the Minister

of Finance such sums of money as have been advanced by him for the

original purchase of this quota from the sale of the same."

Now what that means is that the actions of the Premier of British

Columbia and the Minister of Agriculture have turned the egg marketing

programme completely upside down.

Originally the Minister and his officials were doing a fine job.

There was an orderly programme underway. The Minister was doing his

job. The people had good confidence in that Minister, but the improper

conduct of the Premier has undermined the whole programme. The

situation is deteriorating, thanks to the Minister, thanks to the

actions of thePremier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: And we can't wait any longer, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: ...for any kind of action from the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order, please! I would point out two points with regard to your comments.

First of all, it is not proper to accuse the actions of a Minister

of being improper — or to say that a Minister's actions are improper.

Also we are not discussing the Premier's estimates. We are discussing

the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that

you have sat through this whole debate, and even participated in it,

and you still don't understand what is going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been? Where have you been?

MR. McCLELLAND: All I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that the

whole egg marketing situation in British Columbia is deteriorating at a

rapid pace, and if that doesn't have to do with agriculture in British

Columbia, I don't know what does.

All I want to say is that if the Minister doesn't take some action

right now, if the Minister doesn't open up this whole question to some

kind of a public inquiry, then the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board

is going to go down in a shambles, the British Columbia Broiler

Marketing Board is in danger of going down in a shambles, and the

agriculture industry in British Columbia will be in a shambles and

could collapse.

That's what I'm asking and that's what we're demanding of that

Minister. That's what the people of British Columbia want, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're trying to raise chaos.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver – Howe Sound): It's

understandable why there's some difficulty in maintaining order in the

committee this morning, particularly in view of some of the remarks

which have been addressed from the Chair. Talking about the integrity

of that Chair, I might just say, Mr. Chairman, to you and to other

Members of this House that it's no wonder that among the general public

there's a feeling of dissatisfaction with politics

[ Page 685 ]

and politicians when you would deem to suggest that

the integrity of that Chair is more important than the integrity of

Ministers of the Crown of this province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If they collapse, Mr. Chairman, your Chair

and this whole institution will fall into disrepute. It's because of

this that I must again address myself on a different subject than I've

ever spoken before, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister.

I did speak yesterday about the broiler marketing programme in this

province and I referred specifically to what the law prescribes. I

suggested in those remarks that the Minister, in his discussions or

negotiations with the two members of the Broiler Marketing Board, was

taking unto himself powers that the law did not give him and was

placing the members of the Broiler Marketing Board in the position

where to accede to his requests would have been to oblige them to act

unlawfully.

The Minister, in responding later in the day, indicated that he did

not have before him that time the regulations which established this

Broiler Marketing Board. I would like to deal with those regulations

very briefly, because arising out of these regulations and the failure

of the Minister to recognize their implications, he is placed, aside

altogether from the Premier, in a very, very difficult position.

If you'll recall, Mr. Chairman, the Minister in his meetings with

two members of the Broiler Marketing Board suggested or directed or

requested or asked — I don't care which words the Minister wishes to

use — that they place on the board of the broiler marketing

organization two new members, one from the Interior and one from

Vancouver Island.

I would read to you regulation 301. It specifically states: "There

shall be a board named the British Columbia Broiler Board consisting of

three members."

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, if the Minister now wishes to get up

in this House and clarify some of the remarks that he made before, then

I'm only too pleased to take my place. But I think it might be

appropriate if he wait until I finish, because I'm going to deal with

the memorandum that the Minister sent to the Premier, which does not

make that clear.

There are three members of the board, and you can't do anything else

about it unless you change the order-in-council. That's clear and I'm

sure the Minister agrees.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Do you want me to clarify that?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I don't want you to answer that. You'll have your chance.

In this meeting with the two members of the Broiler Marketing Board,

the Minister also suggested or requested or demanded or asked — and I

don't care which words the Minister uses — that certain additional

quotas be provided in other areas of the province and that the

allocation of those quotas among applicants be determined by a

three-man committee.

I would refer you to division 4 of the order-in-council, creating

this board and this whole marketing scheme, which establishes the

powers of the board. One of the powers is:

"To require any and all persons engaged in the

production, transportation, processing, packing, storing or marketing

of the regulated product" — that's the broiler fowl — "to register with

and obtain licences from the board."

The last of the powers given to this board by the order-in-council

gives them the right to delegate powers to the extent in such manner as

the board deem necessary, except that they cannot in any way delegate

the powers to issue licences to people who would engage in broiler

marketing and production.

It isn't a matter of whether or not the directors of the Broiler

Marketing Board wanted to do something different or didn't want to do

anything in the way indicated by the Minister. The fact of the matter

is that the law of this province prevented this Broiler Marketing Board

from doing any of the things that the Minister asked, demanded,

requested or suggested. They couldn't without breaking the law.

Yet we find in the affidavit sworn by Mr. McAninch, exhibited

thereto, a copy of a memorandum, dated February 12, 1974 — less than a

month ago — from the Minister of Agriculture to the Premier of this

province. The copy also went to G. Anderson, MLA, chairman, NDP caucus

agricultural committee — that's the caucus committee — and to Don

Lewis, MLA. I can only assume that Mr. Anderson is the Hon. Member for

Kamloops and that the Mr. Lewis referred to is the Hon. Member for

Shuswap. The other significant thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the

memorandum from the Minister to the Premier has been signed by D.E.

Lewis, Gerry Anderson and D. Barrett.

What did the Minister of Agriculture say to the Premier in that memorandum? I don't wish to read it all, but it says:

"Since the meeting in your office" — the Premier's

office — "there have been several meetings among members of my staff

with the caucus agricultural committee and with the broiler board.

"The following is a

summary of the situation to date.

In that you have taken a personal interest in these questions, I would

appreciate

[ Page 686 ]

your consideration of the following points.

"First, allocation of production into the Interior. A

three-member selection supervisory committee will be named by myself as

Minister of Agriculture to oversee the selection of the 11 growers in

the Interior."

That's a statement from the Minister of Agriculture to the Premier

of this province which goes beyond the Minister's lawful authority. He

didn't have the right to establish any selection committee, and the

Broiler Marketing Board did not have any right to accept from the

Minister any such direction or any such committee. As a matter of fact,

it was contrary to the law for them to allow such a committee to

exercise the function of selection.

But this is an agreement. We've now got government.... You know, we

order-in-council. We've now got government by private agreement, Mr.

Chairman, in defiance of the orders-in-council and of the statutes of

this province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Shame!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It goes on: "The process of selection will

be the responsibility of a selection supervisory committee" — a

committee which has no authority under the order-in-council, which

cannot exist, and which the Minister could not force upon the Broiler

Marketing Board.

Then the other matter. The memorandum from Mr. Stupich, the Minister of Agriculture, to the Premier says in

section 4:

"Broiler board.

"There are three members of the broiler board, all

three of whom are elected at the annual meeting of the Broiler Growers

Association."

That's in accordance with the order-in-council; that's the law.

There are three and no more than three. The Minister then goes on to

say to the Premier:

"In that the directorate will be expanded almost

immediately to include two directors from the Interior, and in that any

changes in the board's constitution itself should be considered at the

May annual meeting of the association members, I would recommend that

we do not interfere with the board itself."

A recommendation from the Minister of Agriculture to the Premier of

the province that they stop interfering with the board in the conduct

of its lawful responsibility and authority.

They won't interfere says the Minister in his memorandum to the

Premier, because there are going to be some changes in the membership

of the board almost immediately, changes which the board could not

make, which the Broiler Growers' Association could not make because the

law, the order-in-council, does not permit either the board or the

Broiler Growers' Association to make any changes in the composition of

the Broiler Marketing Board.

As I said yesterday, there is only one lawful authority to change

either the composition, the responsibilities or the powers of the

Broiler Marketing Board, and that's the executive council of the

Province of British Columbia. Not that Minister, not the Premier, not

any MLA in the NDP agricultural committee, not in the caucus committee

— they don't have the responsibility or the power or the authority;

it's the executive council of the Province of British Columbia.

What we've got before us now is a government that suggests that

changes must be made in this Broiler Marketing Board, and a government

which is unwilling to act in accordance with the law in bringing those

changes about. A government and Ministers who would rather, somehow or

other, make an under-the-table private agreement which would put the

Broiler Marketing Board outside the law and the members of that board

acting unlawfully. That's the way that the administration of government

is being carried on in this province today.

The reason it is so important, and the reason that we must discuss

it in this Minister's vote, is because it opens the door for the people

of British Columbia to see for themselves how cabinet responsibility

functions in British Columbia. And if this is happening with regard to

the eggmen, what about all the other orders-in-council and cabinet

responsibilities? They're all thrown into question.

The mining industry is up in arms because of authority which will be

given to the Minister of Mines under legislation before this House. I'm

not going to deal with that, Mr. Chairman, but is it any wonder that

they're up in arms when they see this conduct with the Broiler

Marketing Board dealing with the government on a private, ad hoc basis

outside the law? What other organizations, what other groups in the

Province of British Columbia can feel secure? We all appreciate the

concern of people in every walk of life with regard to the performance

of government.

It's obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the NDP are

obviously so embarrassed by the debate that is taking place in this

House, in this committee, that they don't want to stay here and listen

to it. So, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing order 16 (2) regarding divisions. Would you read standing order 16 (2) ?

[ Page 687 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the point of order under this standing order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the time for calling the question is long since passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order states: "...not less than

two minutes, not more than five. We have a timer here and it certainly

hasn't gone past that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When did you turn it on?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just look at the clock!

MR. McGEER: Is there something faulty with the clock on the wall, Mr. Chairman?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's an NDP timer; it runs slow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The timer is a 3-minute timer.

There is no point of order. It would appear that all who can be here

are here. Is it agreed that the vote be taken now?

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Lockstead

Kelly

Webster

Liden

Steves

Barnes

Anderson, G.H.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now that the Members of the government

party have seen fit to return to the House, I suppose I should review

for them the position that I had reached when I.... Well, you see, Mr.

Chairman, you have already heard what I had to say, but it's these

Members who really need to be instructed.

However, I will only very briefly summarize what I said a few

moments ago, Mr. Chairman. It comes down to this: under the laws of the

Province of British Columbia, a certain authority is given to Members

of the cabinet and certain authority is given to other boards or

commissions which are established by those laws. It is improper for

people who have no right or responsibility to interfere with the

operations of either of those boards or commissions, or with the

discharge of cabinet Ministers by their responsibility.

That's where we stand today. It is shocking to find that a Minister

of the Crown is the one who has interfered with the operation of a

board or commission established by order-in-council, completely without

authority, when that cabinet has the power as it deems fit to change

the authority of the board and its constitution, and to give the

Minister some proper say.

It comes also to this: questions have been raised as to whether Hon.

Members of this House and Ministers of the Crown have lied or not.

We're not going to get that answer here, obviously, even though the

Minister of Agriculture is in a position to cast light upon that most

serious question.

It is not a question of whether the Minister has used his lawful

authority properly in the administration of affairs falling within his

department. The question is, Mr. Chairman, whether in the privacy of

their offices and the security of the positions that they hold as

Members of the cabinet of this province, individuals, Members of this

House, are entitled to meet with citizens of the province and to place

propositions before them with all the weight that their particular

office carries and allow those citizens to go out from this building

expecting that they can rely upon the sense of responsibility of Crown

Ministers.

The Premier of this province and the Ministers of this cabinet must

recognize that in their positions they cannot make statements publicly

or in the privacy of their office. They cannot put suggestions or make

demands which are outside the law, because when they do they cast

ordinary citizens into the position of having to choose between whether

to act within the law or to accept the pressure of government to act

outside the law.

For a year or more the citizens of our neighbouring country have had

to face up to the unbridled, unfettered and unlawful use of power by

people who are in positions in the Executive Branch of the United

States of America. And what we have here today is a clear indication

that what has taken place in the United States of America in its

federal government is, and has been, taking place in British Columbia

too — the abuse of executive power and of positions of trust into which

Members are placed by this assembly and by the people of this province.

[ Page 688 ]

That's the issue that is raised by the simple conflict of sworn

testimony by citizens of this province, statements by the Premier and

the absence of any response from the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would seem to me that the charge that the

Hon. Member has made should be contained in a substantive motion and

brought before the House in that manner if he intends to pursue it,

rather than pursued in his estimates.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly am

giving the most serious consideration to that particular act, as I

assure you or other Members of this assembly. It should be a relief to

the people of the Province of British Columbia to know that Members are

prepared to stand on the floor of this House and take these positions

and bring out into the light of day actions by cabinet Ministers which

are wrong, which are improper, and which raise serious doubts as to the

efficiency of government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is a disappointment, Mr. Chairman, to

find that the Minister did not want to respond to the statements made

earlier by my colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams). It is a disappointment because we are faced here this

morning, as we have been faced every afternoon of the last few days,

with a problem which is one of principle, and a fairly fundamental

principle at that.

We have, of course, on the one hand the question of improper use of

government power. We have the whole question, Mr. Chairman, as outlined

in a number of speeches in this chamber as to whether or not it's

correct, lawful, for the Minister or the Premier, or civil servants

acting at their behest, to interfere in the activities of what are

meant to be independent marketing boards set up under our natural

products marketing legislation.

We have argued at length, and I think we have proved fairly

conclusively, that the activity of the Minister of Agriculture, of the

Premier, and of these civil servants acting on their behalf, in

relation to these boards has been improper and, indeed, unlawful.

We feel, as has been mentioned before, that this principle is

identical to that which has been raised, heard, discussed, over the

last year, more than a year, in the United States — whether or not the

Executive Branch of government can act unlawfully, and whether or not

because they have power — power to conceal, power to cover up, power to

coerce — they can ignore the laws that govern other men, and ignore the

laws made by this assembly — not by the executive, but by this

assembly, the legislative branch of government — allegedly to cover

everybody in society.

We discovered that this government and this executive has decided

that according to the affidavits filed, sworn affidavits filed, they

intend to act unlawfully, illegally — that they intend to act as though

the law did not apply to them.

The other aspect, Mr. Chairman, is an equally serious one. We have

affidavits, four in number, dealing with two separate items, and these

affidavits indicate, if they are true, that either the Minister of

Agriculture or the Premier, or both, are not telling the truth in

response to questions in this House.

Indeed, to be perfectly blunt, if these affidavits are true, the Ministers in question obviously must be lying.

This is not a case of a mere difference of

interpretation of past

events. It's not a case of minor variations as to what happened. The

affidavits that we have, if they're true — I'm not sure; I cannot

guarantee that, but there is sworn testimony of citizens of this

province, and responsible citizens as well — if they are true, they are

so contradictory to the statements made in this House that clearly the

Premier and the Minister of Agriculture have misled us, and indeed

would have lied to this House.

On the other hand, if the statements by the Minister of Agriculture

and the Premier are accurate, we have in this province at least four

men who are willing to perjure themselves, willing to lie before a

notary public, willing to lie about the actions of the Premier and the

Minister of Agriculture and, in so doing, casting doubt upon this whole

House, its operations, the integrity of the government and, of course,

the integrity of the Members here who, after all, should be the first

line of defence when it comes to checking on the accuracy of government

statements.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the statements of the Premier, in reply

to questions in this House, were not corroborated by the Minister of

Agriculture in the manner that I would have thought, had he been sure

of their accuracy. Mr. Stupich, the Minister of Agriculture, on

Wednesday last, talked about: "it's a non-issue, it's a dead issue." He

talked about, "I'm not denying that this is their best recollection of

what happened."

He said "I'm not denying that this is their best recollection of

what happened. I'm not denying that they are likely to recall something

that happened a year-and-a-half ago word-for-word better than I would."

He's not denying that the likelihood of their being accurate is better

than his own. Indeed, he states it flatly. But he goes on to say,

despite the fact that in this House the Minister of Agriculture said

that in his opinion it's likely that the affidavits filed are more

accurate than his recollection of the facts: "I just don't remember it.

I'm not terribly concerned about trying to remember it." Then he goes

on and

[ Page 689 ]

states: "I'm not interested in inquiring into anything!"

Now, this is very curious. We have a Minister who states that the

people who swore these affidavits are probably more correct in their

memory of the facts than he is. He goes on to say that he didn't say

that the facts were different from what they said. He goes on, however,

to say that he's not interested in inquiring into anything. He's not

interested in trying to remember. And therefore we've had in the last

two days the opposition attempting to push as hard as we can to jog his

memory.

Mr. Chairman, the point at issue is this: the Minister has, within

his own powers, by consultation with the officials of his department,

the ability to set the record straight, and he has consistently refused

in this debate to do so. Now, why has he refused? Why will he not take

the logical, normal step as the Minister responsible for his department

to inquire of his officials, and to discover where the truth actually

lies? This is not a question of a couple of people having very minor

variations of memory; it is a question of totally different

interpretations of the facts.

The Minister, in my view, has every opportunity and has had every

opportunity to state what the facts are. He can do this by the simple

expedient of consulting with the officials of his department. The

officials of his department — more than one of them — have been in this

chamber just two or three feet from him. It would have been perfectly

simple to consult and find out what the truth was, but apparently,

according to the Minister, he was not interested in finding out whether

the Premier had told the truth in this House, and he was not interested

in finding out whether those who swore formal affidavits were telling

the truth when they swore such affidavits.

Now, why is it that he didn't take the logical and normal step of

clearing this thing up? We've asked. Every Member in the opposition who

has spoken in this debate, I believe, has referred to this in one way

or another. We've asked time after time for honesty in government.

This is the government that promised us open government — not

closed-doors government, not statements such as "if you say anything

outside this room, I'll deny it." This is the government that promised

honest government, open government.

It's the government which, when one Member of the cabinet apparently

was not candid with the Premier about a matter which has nothing to do

with public affairs, nothing to do with the conduct of public business

in the province, nothing to do with his oath of office, nothing to do

with the expenditure of public funds, when he apparently, according to

the Premier, misled him — indeed I think the words used were "was not

candid with the Premier" — when that happened to him, by golly, he got

the boot very fast. He got thrown out, and there were a lot of

sanctimonious things said by the cabinet members at that time.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where are they now?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Where are they now? One of them is in the

room. One of them is here, and she said — and let me see if I can find

her quote exactly. Oh, dear, maybe I can't. I'll have to make sure I

get it exact. Well, I don't have it under my finger, but in any event,

the statement made by the Minister was this: "If something incorrect

has been done, it is quite right to fire the man. He should be fired at

once."

The Premier made statements that his government was an honest,

upright government, clean as a hound's tooth. There was going to be

none of this nonsense about having any little doubts about truth or

veracity of any Minister's statement, and yet now we have the Premier

not even attempting....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We are discussing the Minister of Agriculture's estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And as the Minister of Agriculture is present, I would ask you to direct your questions to him.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, you are perfectly right. We

are discussing his estimates, and I'm trying to find out why there is

this sudden change of heart of the government where he can stay here

and simply not give out the facts when he has every opportunity of

obtaining the facts, but when another former Minister apparently, if

that's the word....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! This matter can be canvassed under the Premier's estimates. I would ask you to confine your remarks to the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking why this Minister

of Agriculture does not set the record straight when he has within his

power the officials, and the ability to consult with officials, which

straighten it out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I must give a ruling, and that

is that this matter of requesting further information from the Minister

now has been repeated many, many times. The Minister has indicated that

he has given all the information that he is going to give on this

matter. Therefore I would rule that any further questioning seeking

further information that has already been canvassed

[ Page 690 ]

repeatedly is out of order under standing order 43.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, that's closure! That's

absurd. We have the right to question the Minister on a subject as

important to this Legislature, comparatively, as Watergate is to the

United States. It's the truth and honesty of Ministers of the Crown,

and they are not giving us the truth.

Either the Premier is lying or the people who swore those affidavits

are lying. We want to know who is lying. He can set the record

straight. He can do it. Here's his opportunity, and I want to know why

he isn't doing it! When it came to the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder)

there was a totally different situation there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The actions of the Premier are

not canvassed under the vote of the Minister of Agriculture, nor can

any Member insist on an answer in estimates. He may ask questions, but

all Members know they cannot insist on answers.

The constant repetition of details of various affidavits is clearly

tedious and repetitious, inasmuch as it has been canvassed for two or

three days. Therefore I would rule that it offends standing order 43 at

this point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that you have taken such a decision on correct advice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If you wish to challenge the ruling of the Chair you may do so.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I only recommend to you, for

your own best interests, as you said earlier you were protecting the

integrity of the Chair, that you reconsider that position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have made a ruling because I

felt that it must be made, and if you feel that the ruling is incorrect

then you may challenge the ruling of the Chair.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, when coming to

your conclusion which, I gather, is not yet reached about your ruling

you indicated to the House that the Hon. Minister — and I'm sorry, I

can't quote your exact words of just a few seconds ago — had given his

answers. That is not correct. The Hon. Minister said last night: "I

have said all I'm going to say about that." That is a refusal to

answer. He's not answered; he's refused to answer, Mr. Chairman, and

that's significantly different.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the Hon. Members know that you may

ask the Minister, but you may not insist upon him giving any specific

answers. You may pursue the matter with him to some extent, but I've

ruled that any further questioning along the same line would be tedious

and repetitious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Closure!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Members may pursue other matters in relation to the same thing, but not continue on the same point.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, oh! Closure!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Members are familiar with the laws of

this House. The remedy is that if they don't agree with the ruling of

the Chair, they may appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Are there other matters you may wish to comment on?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, you carry on and answer questions.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, perhaps you can try again and steer a course such that he will allow you to make the rest of your speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Neither the Hon. Minister nor the Member

makes the rules. I will listen to your remarks and if they are in

violation of my ruling then I will so inform you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll remind you once again,

as I reminded you one time last year, of Luke,

chapter 15. Christ

himself found it necessary on occasions to repeat questions in

different ways to people who had not understood the import of the

question and could therefore understand by parable — the lost coin, the

lost son, the lost sheep.

I'll remind you, as a Minister of the cloth, or former Minister of

the cloth, of the fact that repetition in a different form is often

necessary if people do not understand the importance of the issue

raised when it is raised in one way; then it is possible to raise it in

another. I quote no other authority than Luke 15.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have made a ruling. If the

Hon. Member can pursue this matter in an original and fresh way, then

the Chair would be prepared to entertain that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, the original and fresh

way of imposing closure upon debate in this House, which you are

attempting to do....

[ Page 691 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is an improper remark to

address to the Chair. I am seeking to conduct my duties in accordance

with the standing orders of the House, and if the Hon. Member does not

agree there is a legal remedy, and the legal remedy is to appeal this

ruling.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you

understand the importance of what you are doing. We have here a

question of the integrity of Ministers of the Crown. We have here the

very question — let's be blunt — as to whether or not the Premier of

British Columbia lied in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We are not considering the Premier's estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are not. We are considering the

estimates of the man who could straighten out this matter and clear the

name of the Premier, which he has failed to do, or failed to attempt to

do, or, indeed, prove that the affidavits are correct or incorrect.

He hasn't done one or the other, and we want to know why. Now, it's

his estimates; it's him that I'm questioning because I want to know why

he hasn't done this thing to clear the Premier's name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The question is perfectly clear.

I'm sure that if the Minister wishes to add anything further he may.

But I'm simply saying that to pursue the issue and to insist on the

answers is not proper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question is perfectly clear as to

whether we in this Legislature can discuss the impropriety of the

Premier and the Minister of Agriculture making statements which are

denied by responsible citizens on sworn affidavits.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the question is perfectly clear, then perhaps the Hon. Member would give the Minister a chance to speak.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd be delighted to. Go ahead. You carry on — he asked you to speak.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, with due respect, Sir, I thought

the Liberal leader was pursuing this matter in a very original way.

After all, it isn't easy to think of different ways of asking a

question that's so sharp and narrow in its confines. It's testing the

imagination of the Members to, as you say, provide original approaches

to something as fundamental as lying. I thought the Liberal leader was

doing very well at that, Mr. Chairman. I didn't find it tedious at all.

And certainly it wasn't irrelevant, referring to standing order 43 that

you've been studying this morning.

Mr. Chairman, I have one question of the Minister. Has he consulted

with his Deputy, since his Deputy returned from Saskatchewan, as to the

veracity of the items contained in the affidavit? That question hasn't

been asked before; it's the first time of asking. If you'll answer it,

it will be the last. Has he consulted with his Deputy as to the

veracity of the statements...?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, I just get interrupted...I need to start again. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, has the Minister consulted with his Deputy since he

returned regarding the veracity of the statements in the four

affidavits which have been laid before the public of British Columbia?

If so, what were the recollections of his Deputy?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) raised some questions about the Interior

Vegetable Marketing Board. And she had some information that they had

been told by someone that they would be the first ones to participate

in the income assurance programme, even before such a programme was

ever announced.

I have no knowledge that they were ever told they would be first. I

didn't say I had sent them a letter. I said that in talking about the

progress with different commodity groups, with respect to the vegetable

growers, we have exchanged correspondence. As recently as yesterday I

was preparing another letter to go to the president of the Interior

board.

As far as a member of my staff telling them they would have to unite

the two organizations before any plan would be considered, that was a

misunderstanding. I have consulted with my staff about that, and the

letter I was working on yesterday will, I think, be a successful

attempt to convince them that that was not the impression we tried to

convey.

From the time I first arrived in office I had reports from both

groups that they had been trying to work together to unite the two

organizations. They asked for my response and I said I would welcome

such a move. I have asked from time to time for reports of how they're

progressing. Sometimes they're optimistic; sometimes they're

pessimistic. But I have never said and the staff at no time tried to

make them believe that that was a prerequisite to entering into any

income assurance programme. To the best of my knowledge they were never

told they would be first — certainly not by me.

Interjection.

[ Page 692 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Of course, the amalgamation would have to

come from them; I can't impose it. I would assist in any way because I

think it would be good for them, but there is no suggestion there would

be any imposition of it and no suggestion that it would be a

prerequisite for any further consideration of any government assistance.

I see the Members of the Liberal Party are now all back in their

seats. I was rather hoping that would be the case because all five of

them have spoken immediately after the Member for North Okanagan. It's

rather a shame that the once proud, very effective and very strong

Liberal Party has such a paucity of material with which to attack the

government that they have to fall back on the sort of campaign they

have indulged in for the last four days. It's a disappointment to me; I

would have expected a lot more from them. I suppose that after they

fell down so badly in the throne speech debate and were so ineffective

in the budget debate, they felt they had to do something. So now

they're trying to get their names in the paper by continuing on this

topic ad infinitum.

Of course, that's their privilege; they can do this. They can keep

asking questions; they can keep asking the same questions. The Hon.

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) can keep rereading

into the record his same speech several times a day. There's no way,

really, of stopping him; he can keep on doing that until it's time to

catch the plane. It's rather surprising at this time of day on Friday

that we have a full House of Liberals.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Where is the Premier?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Premier is attending government business in Vancouver. He had to leave early to catch a plane.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not his estimates that are up today;

he didn't have any reason to expect that my estimates would be up

today. There is no reason for him to be here because his estimates will

not be called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister confine his remarks to the vote?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) repeated himself; he said muscle was applied to both the

egg board and the broiler board. I have answered this many times. I

have simply said on many occasions — and I'll repeat it again, just in

case he didn't hear in the first, second, third and fifty-fourth time —

that on neither occasion where there was a meeting in the Premier's

office and where there were discussions as to what should happen in the

way of settlements was settlement reached in that office.

In the case of the Egg Marketing Board situation, the affidavit said

the meeting was on October 26. The egg board signed the agreement five

days later on November 1. I don't have in my notes the day as to when

the producers themselves signed it. The details of the agreements were

not worked out in the Premier's office.

In the case of the broiler situation, again, the date has been well

read into the record as to when the meeting was in the Premier's office

on the broiler situation. The date has also been well read into the

record as to when...I had reason to believe, having two of the three

members of the broiler board in my office, telling me they agreed at

the conclusion we had reached in my office, that the broiler board

would agree when two out of three agreed.

I am not saying anything other than the fact than I felt we had

reached agreement that day. But that agreement was in the terms that

were discussed in the Premier's office; the terms were quite different

from the ones discussed in the Premier's office.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) handled

it very neatly by reading into the record a number of questions, and I

think I wrote down all of them. In some cases he read out a very

specific question and that's easy; in other cases there was a rather

long speech before or after the question. I might not have them all

down.

The first one: was the agreement drawn on instructions of the

Premier? I have already said the details were quite different from

those discussed in the Premier's office. I have already said the

Premier urged the parties to reach an agreement. That's the answer to

that question because the Premier did not lay down the terms of the

agreement. He did persuade the parties to agree; that's all.

Were the terms those insisted upon by the Premier? No, in both cases.

Did the Premier say there would be no court action? He did express a

wish that it would not go to court. The board itself wished it would

not go to court, and certainly the producers wished that. All parties

hoped it would not go to court. There was no agreement reached in the

Premier's office that it would not go to court. Both parties went out

of there still threatening court action. The Premier's word did not

carry in that case.

Was this an order? As the Member has said, he had no authority to

make any such order and did indeed make no such order in his office or

any other time to the best of my knowledge.

Did the Premier physically threaten anyone? The First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has many, many times entered into the

record the words he prefers to use — not the words in

[ Page 693 ]

the affidavit but his version of them. The Premier

never in my hearing physically threatened anyone in his office at that

time or any other time.

Did I set the figure at $7,500 for Mr. Kovachich? As I said earlier

— it's in the record and I'll say it again — the figure was calculated

by my staff as one that was reasonable and on which both parties could

agree. It was a figure I suggested to both parties at different times

and at different meetings and at different dates when I met with the

board, the producers and with both groups. And that figure was the one

that was finally signed by both parties and that answers that question.

It was not the Premier who set it; I was the one, with the assistance of my staff, that set that figure.

Did the Premier say he would deny everything if it was said outside

of his office? The Premier never at any time in my hearing said

anything like that. I can't be responsible for anything he may have

said in any other conversation, but never in my hearing did the Premier

make any statement like that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Ask your staff.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You're talking about a meeting now when

staff weren't present. That particular affidavit refers to quite a

different meeting. There were no staff there at that meeting.

Will I request members of my staff, and you named them, to give

statements to the House? The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

also dealt with this to some extent by saying that the actions of the

government have turned the egg-marketing scheme and possibly the

broiler-marketing scheme upside-down.

With particular reference to the egg-marketing scheme, I'd like the

Members opposite to consider just who is turning the scheme

upside-down. I'd like you to recall that this agreement was reached a

year and a half ago and was settled. That was it, until the Members

opposite for partisan, political, short-term gain decided to make a

real issue of it and turn the schemes upside-down and threaten the

existence of these schemes the way they're carrying on. They have every

right to do that; I'm not denying your right to make political attacks.

But I am denying your good judgment in trying to involve officials

of my department in your political attacks. When you start to bring

those people in and start asking questions of those people, you are

then challenging their very existence as officials who are going to be

able to carry on any kind of relations with the agricultural industry

in this province.

I have not discussed these matters with my deputy since he has

returned from Saskatchewan; there has been very little time to discuss

anything. I told you earlier I have had reports of all the meetings

they attended when I was not there. I'm satisfied with the reports I've

had. My deputy has not asked me whether he should or should not say

anything to the press. If he were to ask me, I would advise him that it

would probably be in his own interest and the interests of the industry

as a whole if he declined to comment on what is obviously a political

attempt to bring disfavour on the Minister of Agriculture. But that's

his choice. That's my advice.

I think it's very unfortunate that, as I said, the once-proud, the

once-effective, the once-glorious Liberal party has decided that for

their own salvation I have to sustain the kind of an attack that is

doing extreme disservice to the agricultural industry in this province

and will do a lot more disservice if it's continued. But, of course,

they may feel for their own political survival, having gone down this

road, there's just no way for them to back out of it.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

made a point about adding two members to the board. I think he may have

corrected his remarks later on. It was not a case of adding two members

to the board; it was a case of adding two members to the association

directorate. This was an offer the two members of the broiler board in

my office said they would act on immediately. It hadn't even occurred

to me. For that matter, I wasn't aware of how many members were on the

association directorate or anything else. But they said to involve the

Interior people right away, since we're going to have 11 producers up

there, we will invite them to name two directors to the association, of

which there were 12; they were going to add two more and make it 14.

The number of people on the board itself was a different discussion

and one that I have dealt with previously. The order-in-council didn't

give the board the right to delegate the licensing authority. I wasn't

aware of that at the time, but there certainly is a very easy solution

to that. As I said, the board members themselves apparently weren't

aware when they were in my office that they didn't have the right to

delegate authority. But nevertheless, now that you have pointed this

out, since the broiler board agreed to that procedure — or at least I

thought they had agreed; we'll have to find out — assuming I was

correct in believing they had agreed, then the order-in-council could

be changed to accommodate this question of delegating the right to name

the 11 producers in the Interior.

One question the hon. leader of the Liberal Party raised, one

question only: did the executive branch act unlawfully? At no time in

any of the material I've seen has it been suggested that the executive

branch, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, has taken any action in any

of this at all. The Minister, yes. There has been criticism of the

Premier. Part of it? Yes! But I am not the executive branch, and none

of these matters have been referred to the executive branch.

[ Page 694 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted that the

Minister's memory is improving so much. Wednesday, he thought this was

an insignificant debate; he couldn't remember very much. It was one of

a few hours that just happened sometime previously and it wasn't very

much in his mind. Of course the Premier remembered it; of course Unger

remembered it; of course Brunsdon remembered it; of course the others

remembered it too. But the Minister of course didn't remember it. "I

just don't remember it. I'm not terribly concerned about trying to

remember it."

Now, under questioning, repetitive questioning perhaps, his memory

has improved. Thus you see the virtue, Mr. Chairman, of following the

Bible, Luke 15, of repeating questions in a variety of ways. I'm

delighted we are able in this instance to get more information out from

the Minister as we did today.

His last remarks were interesting. The executive branch, he said,

hadn't of course done anything improper. He admitted that as a member

of the executive branch, yes, he had. Now, that's interesting too. With

respect to the three members of that board, you'd better check the

quotes of the last line or two of your statement, Mr. Minister.

But the issue is still perfectly clear. We have a Minister of the

Crown failing to support the statements of the Premier, even though he

has the power to do so by a proper inquiry of the departmental

officials. We have him, by his refusal, his stonewalling over day after

day, casting doubt upon the replies of the Premier to questions in this

chamber. I would suggest that what he has done is give credence to

affidavits which otherwise they might not even have had.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important matter. It's a matter

which in other jurisdictions is of supreme importance: whether or not

the executive branch has the right not to obey the law. I use the

executive branch in the broad sense meaning Ministers of the Crown,

individually or severally or collectively. Whether or not, in this

Legislature, the members of the executive will truthfully report to the

representatives of the people who are here assembled and assembled in

the back benches, the representatives of the people, as to what

happened.

Time after time in parliamentary history we've had cases where those

charged with carrying on the responsibilities of government have failed

to properly account to the peoples' representatives, which we are, and

in so doing have brought the whole procedure of democracy down. In many

instances it causes complete ruin.

Mr. Chairman, the failure of the Minister day after day to provide

this House with adequate information either to support the Premier and

clear his name or to support the affidavits leads me to move a motion

at this time, seconded by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland),

that the salary of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, as provided for in

vote 3, be reduced by $1 — the standard motion of non-confidence in a

Minister who has failed to properly defend his department's estimates,

failed properly to defend the Premier, failed to defend his

departmental officials.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I seconded the motion because I

believe there is a serious question that has not been answered. It was

with reluctance because this Minister had gained the confidence of this

House in the previous months and was doing a good job, as we've said

before, until the interference from other parts of this government got

in the way.

I'm disappointed that the Minister has said it's the opposition

causing the problems. We didn't raise any of these issues, Mr.

Chairman; the issues were raised by two very concerned people in the

egg-marketing industry.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, very concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Langley has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please! Would the Hon. Members please not interrupt the speaker?

MR. McCLELLAND: Those people lived for over a year with an

imposed settlement which finally, in all conscience, they could not

live with any longer. They had to bring those facts out into the public

eye; they put their necks on the block by signing a sworn affidavit,

telling the actual events which went on between them, the Minister of

Finance, the Premier, and the Minister of Agriculture. It was the

people who were party to those agreements who finally came forward and

raised the issues initially — not the opposition — the people involved.

It's interesting that this morning the Minister has finally said

something. He has finally indicated that the affidavits filed in this

House contain lies. The Minister has accused those people who have

signed those sworn affidavits of lying. Mr. Chairman, four British

Columbians have stood on their honour in order to bring forward their

fears about political interference and political muscle being applied

to force a certain kind of condition. The Minister has been treating

what is a very serious presentation, sworn and signed, in a frivolous

and off-hand manner.

[ Page 695 ]

The Minister has placed a cloud of suspicion over the integrity of

these men, using his position in this House to impugn their integrity

by innuendo, by refusing to give clear and responsible answers to very

serious allegations. And now he accuses them of lying, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go on record as supporting the integrity of those men. I

want to ask the Minister again to open this issue up to the truth. Mr.

Chairman, if the Minister is accusing those people of lying, they must

have their day in court in the public; they must be given that

opportunity.

Now, I want to ask a couple of questions, and I'll admit, Mr.

Chairman, that a couple of them were asked last night. But I didn't get

any answers at that time and I only want to rephrase them once. I'll

only ask them once again. I think that's fair enough because in the

heat of debate I'm sure that the Minister forgot about them because he

answered everybody else's questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we want to hear them again.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right! I asked last night, Mr. Chairman,

whether or not at any time the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) urged the

Minister of Agriculture to place the Broiler Marketing Board under

government trusteeship. Now, the Minister hasn't even referred even to

that question yet. Did the Member ever urge that the Minister place

that marketing board under government trusteeship, and if so when? Was

it before or was it after that the Minister talked about initial quotas

in relation to the board?

I wanted to ask the Minister whether he considered his actions

subsequent to those discussions to be, in fact, the placing of the

Broiler Marketing Board under some form of government trusteeship, at

least under government review? I think that's an important question and

one which hasn't been asked before, so it hasn't been answered before.

I want to know whether the Minister has yet received a resolution

from the British Columbia Egg Producers' Association supporting in full

the entire producers' association, supporting in full the stand taken

by sworn affidavit by the two members of the board in question — or

former members of the board — Mr. Unger and Mr. Brunsdon?

Mr. Chairman, I wonder in view of all the published reports and in

view of further testimony in this House that egg producers, for one

commodity group, are very unhappy about the political interference by

the Premier, is the Minister prepared to review his position and order

a public inquiry? — particularly in the light of his statements this

morning that these people lied in their affidavits.

Is the Minister going to publicly, outside of this House, refute those affidavits

in question, or will they take legal action against the people involved?

I believe that in the light of the answers this morning, the

Minister has an obligation to begin an immediate inquiry. There's no

question in my mind, no question whatsoever, that the Premier in

relation to this question of the marketing board took more than a

passing interest, much more than a passing interest.

No doubt that those producers were threatened. No doubt that there

was political interference in the operations of two of British

Columbia's marketing boards. No doubt that the Premier did interfere;

that the Premier did lay down certain orders and that the Premier did

suggest that those producers would be in for a rough ride if they

didn't toe the line. No doubt whatsoever, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister himself admits that there was political interference.

And he has said, "What's wrong with that?" Well, that's part of the

problem, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister doesn't even understand

anything as fundamental as that question. He should know what's wrong

with that. He should know what's wrong with that kind of political

interference. He should know what's wrong with that kind of political

muscle.

The Minister not only admitted that there was political

interference; the Minister has also admitted that he threatened the

Broiler Marketing Board. The Minister admitted in this House that he

threatened the Broiler Marketing Board. And he doesn't understand

what's wrong with that. And his threats are working because the egg

producers are now operating in fear; in fear that he or the Premier

will take further action and, in fact, may even order cut-backs in the

production in regard to those egg producers.

Mr. Chairman, a quote from an

article in The Vancouver Sun : "The fear is evident in the response of producers." And let's listen to this little remark:

"The fear is evident in the response of producers to

confidential, but leaked reports," — confidential, but leaked reports —

"by a Department of Agriculture employee conducting a one-man inquiry

into the dispute between a few northern egg producers at the B.C. Egg

Marketing Board."

Mr. Chairman, once again it seems to me that we had better call some

officials before a public inquiry — not only to clear up this question

of affidavit statements, and that's vitally important that these

questions be cleared up, but to clear up yet another indication of

leakage in this government. Another indication of leakage of

confidential reports by an official.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why doesn't your own leader take a stand? What's going on there?

[ Page 696 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Don't give that speech in Kelowna.

MR. McCLELLAND: Once again Mr. Chairman, we've got an example of government confidential documents being leaked to the press....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Where's your leader?

MR. McCLELLAND: ...being leaked all over the province of

British Columbia. That alone should be enough evidence for that

Minister to call an immediate inquiry. That alone!

Talk about Watergate! My God, the province of British Columbia is getting to look more like Watergate every day.

The Minister yesterday, I believe it was yesterday in this House, in

response to a question from the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder),

denied that there was any pressure to have any further reductions of

quotas among existing producers; that there was a 90 per cent quota in

effect at the moment, and that there weren't any further moves or any

further suggestions of further reductions in quota. Yet, that leaked

confidential report says, "Perhaps the lower mainland producers should

be cut by 10 per cent of their quota from the 90 per cent of the

allowable quota which they are now producing at." That's what that

leaked confidential report suggests, Mr. Chairman.

You know, it's sad to me, Mr. Chairman, that this government doesn't

even understand how serious the problem is; how serious the charges

that have been made are. The charges are of lying. Even your own

Member, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Shuswap has accused publicly — in

an

article in a public newspaper — has accused agricultural officials

and the Agriculture Minister of lying. That from your Member from

Shuswap. And still they don't understand the seriousness of the charges.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) pointed

out very clearly that the Minister has acted beyond his authority. The

Minister has admitted that he has interfered beyond his authority. The

Minister has admitted that he has interfered; he stood in his place

today and admitted it — that he has interfered beyond his authority. No

doubt about that. No doubt about that Mr. Chairman.

MR. LIDEN: You've got egg on your face.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this government has egg on its face. This government is in serious trouble and knows it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got it. Scrambled eggs on your face.

MR. McCLELLAND: The government is in serious trouble and knows it and that's why the Premier's gone into hiding again.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: The phantom MLA, just heard from again.

Mr. Chairman, in relation to the problem of the Minister acting

beyond his authority: again I'd just like to say that if there isn't

any political consideration going on in the selection of the board or

the committee to choose which 11 producers will be allowed to begin

their quotas in the Okanagan-Kamloops area, then why not allow the

broiler board to do its job? Why not allow the broiler board to

implement the policies that are laid down by the laws of British

Columbia? Why do you have to interfere again outside of your authority?

Mr. Chairman, the Minister said that the opposition raised all these

questions with regard to the collapse or the possible collapse of the

marketing board set-up system in British Columbia.

I draw to your attention again, Mr. Chairman, a resolution not from

the opposition, not from the Liberal Party, not from the Social Credit

Party but from the British Columbia Egg Producers Association in which,

because of political interference by the Premier of British Columbia

and political interference by the Minister of Agriculture, the egg

producers of British Columbia have taken very drastic action — the kind

of action that's never been necessary in this province before. I draw

to your attention again, Mr. Chairman, that had this whole affair

remained clean, if the Premier had kept his nose out of it, if the

Minister had not succumbed to that kind of blatant political pressure,

then the problem of expanding the egg marketing industry to the rest of

the province would have been well on its way, and was well on its way

until....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On Clearbrook's terms.

MR. McCLELLAND: On the terms negotiated, Mr. Chairman, by

your Minister of Agriculture. And that Minister of water (Hon. R.A.

Williams) has stood up and attempted to cut the legs out from under

that Minister of Agriculture by his attack on the marketing boards when

the Minister stood up the day before and defended and praised the

marketing boards. You've attempted to cut the legs out of your own

Minister and it's that kind of political interference, once again, that

we're fed up with in British Columbia.

[ Page 697 ]

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Leave the Minister alone to do his job. He was doing a good job until you started to apply the muscle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that the motion does concern the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, I see.

MRS. JORDAN: We're not sure who the Minister of Agriculture is.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right; it's difficult to tell who's

running the Agriculture department. But I must say that there was a

programme underway, there were negotiations underway, but the conduct

once again of the Premier of British Columbia undermined that whole

programme, and it is now in danger of collapse. That's a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) about undermining.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm going to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that

regardless of what kind of a snowjob we're faced with here, the

question isn't one of expansion of industry at all; it isn't one of

quotas at all; it isn't one of marketing boards at all, because the

Minister has ably defended the marketing boards. He's ably defended the

marketing boards and the kind of job that they should be allowed to do,

if you people would keep your sticky fingers out of it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

All the glue is in Clearbrook, and you know it.

MR. McCLELLAND: The question, I repeat again, is of power

politics, of integrity by Ministers of this Crown, of morality in

government and of truth. Somebody is not telling the truth, Mr.

Chairman, and it's about time. Somebody's lying and it's about time

that we found out the truth and opened this whole thing up to public

inquiry. That's why I second that motion, Mr. Chairman.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I haven't spoken

on this matter over the past few days. I've listened, though, with

interest and with increasing concern to the case which has been, I

think, very well put by a number of Members of the opposition.

The Minister, since he was sworn in as Minister of Agriculture, has

told a number of people and has made it pretty clear that he is a

Minister in a hurry. I think that's a fair observation on the comments

that he has made in various parts of the province. He's a Minister in a

hurry to catch up with some of the shortcomings of previous

administrations in agriculture, and a Minister in a hurry to assist

people engaged in agriculture, but I don't think we realized that in

that rush or hurry the Minister would employ shortcuts which were not

necessary in the first place and which were not entirely correct in the

second place.

There seems to me to be no doubt about the fact that the Minister

did exceed his authority in this particular instance. To be charitable,

one could say that he did it because of his desire to make corrections

and to bring about an improvement in the industries concerned, but that

really doesn't excuse him.

I also have to say that I'm very disappointed, on his return from

Saskatchewan, that the Premier's attendance in this House today has

been for just a few moments — Mr. Chairman, before you bang the gavel —

when he obviously has such a vital role to play in clearing up the

doubts and uncertainty which exist about this matter which has occupied

the attention of the House for quite some time. I'm extremely

disappointed that, in spite of his expansion on the matter a few

minutes ago, the Minister has still not given straightforward and

direct answers to the questions which have been put in an intelligent,

responsible and concerned fashion by several Members of the opposition

side of this House.

MR. McGEER: I'm rather surprised that the Attorney-General,

who was making a continuous speech from his seat, hasn't been up to lay

his charges, if they should be made, regarding favouritism by the

members of the Egg Marketing Board out of self-interest.

I think there is only one Member of this House who has a determined

self-interest in the matter in question. I refer to quotas here, but

that's not the important issue that we're debating with this motion,

and that's the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). If one were to really

trace the course of events, one would find that it has been the

political backbench that laid the muscle on the Premier, that laid the

muscle on the Minister of Agriculture, that laid the muscle on the Egg

Marketing Board, that led to the four affidavits that were placed

before the public of British Columbia.

None of the people who have been raising the issue in this House

have any self-interest in this matter. All of them have agreed that

there should be a better distribution of egg and broiler production in

British Columbia and that there should be thriving industries in the

Interior and the north.

But Mr. Chairman, the end never justifies the means.

[ Page 698 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hey, where'd you get that?

MR. McGEER: This NDP government which went so sanctimoniously

to the public of British Columbia, saying it would be clean as a

hound's tooth....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's Gaglardi's line.

MR. McGEER: ...was busy applying the kind of backroom muscle

that no government in British Columbia has ever dared before to apply.

Never have we had affidavits in British Columbia coming forward saying

that the Premier would kick the "censored" out of a group of people

that he brought into his office. Never before.

I'm disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier visited Victoria so

briefly this week. It seems as though when it begins to get hot in the

kitchen, the Premier goes outside where it's cool. Last Friday we had a

march on Victoria by over 1,000 Surrey school teachers and the Premier

was busy exercising....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: He was! He wasn't attending to his business here in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! The motion reads that the salary

of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, as provided for in vote 3, be

reduced by $1. Direct your comments to that motion.

MR. McGEER: That's right. The Premier is the Minister of

Finance and I want to hear him, in this debate, say whether or not

that's an appropriate action.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the substance of the motion.

MR. McGEER: This is the substance of the motion. Who pays his

salary? The Minister of Finance pays his salary. If we pass this

motion, and I hope we will, he'll have to change his budget. It's of

vital interest to the Minister who has visited Victoria so briefly, and

who might, if he were here, tell us....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member either make his remarks relevant to the motion or take his seat?

MR. McGEER: I think it's relevant for every single Member of

this House, including the Premier, to speak to this motion. There's

nothing irrelevant about it. It's an important question that everybody

should vote on, including the Premier of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I ask the Hon. Member to make

his remarks relevant to the motion — why he lacks confidence in the

Minister of Agriculture — or else take his seat.

MR. McGEER: Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that it's not important for everybody to vote?

MR. LIDEN: That's not the issue.

MR. McGEER: But it is the issue — what every person's

recorded vote is. Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to persuade all the Members

of this House to support the motion, including the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member take his seat, please?

MR. McGEER: On what grounds? If I'm to take my seat, you need to say why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. McGEER: Why, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm ordering you to be seated. Be seated.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, on what standing order are you ordering me to be seated? Name your authority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You either take your seat or I report to the Speaker forthwith.

MR. LIDEN: You know the rules Pat; you know the rules.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, you ask me to take my seat.

You have to state what order you are using. What rule is that? I'm just

asking the Chairman for his authority.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The rules call for you to sit down the minute the Chairman stands up.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Chairman is always in order in this House.

I think the Member should be allowed to proceed.

I'm sure he'll come back. I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that he has not

been speaking to the motion, but I think he will come back to it and I

suggest that he be allowed to proceed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only one Member is allowed to be on his feet at

a time. I would request that the Hon. Member be seated. He has refused

to obey my

[ Page 699 ]

order...

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I only asked you to tell me why you wanted me to be seated.

MR. LIDEN: Sit down and he'll tell you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member insists on playing games, then we will play games. I will report this matter to the Speaker of the House.

MR. LIDEN: Sit down, Pat.

MR. McGEER: No game, Mr. Chairman. I have no desire really to

be in any conflict with you. I am quite desirous of keeping to the

point, but I thought I was on the point and I needed guidance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to remain seated

while I make my comments. Now I think that's clear. You just

misunderstood what I was seeking to do.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the matter which I wish to report to you is that I asked the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey to take his seat so that I might make a comment with regard to the

violation of standing orders. He refused to remain in his seat and I

was unable to make any comments.

However, I understand now that he is willing to remain seated while

I make my comments. I would request that you leave the chair, now that

I've made my point.

MR. SPEAKER: After you get it all over, I've a birthday cake up in the restaurant for you. You're all welcome to come. (Laughter.)

House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling that I made was that thus far in the debate the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey has said nothing relevant to this motion. I would ask that he say

something relevant to this motion, or else I would ask him not to take

his place in the debate.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if it's the wish of the House, I'll continue.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want you to understand that I

first of all needed to appreciate exactly why you requested that I take

my seat. Then

I thought you were about to recognize someone else. But in any event, speaking to the motion, Mr. Chairman....

I think that a number of Hon. Members have tried to focus sharply on

the precise issue before the Minister of Agriculture at the point of

this motion that we reduce his salary by $1. The simple issue is this:

whether or not the government is prepared to tell the truth about the

methods it has used and to take the responsibility for its actions.

The Minister of Agriculture admits in a memorandum, which was seen

by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) and the Member for Kamloops (Mr.

G.H. Anderson), that he was forced by the Premier to take certain

actions that now have been well established were outside his

responsibility and beyond the law. Now, Mr. Chairman, that isn't one of

the four affidavits that were laid. That was a memo of the Minister of

Agriculture himself.

Certainly the people who attended the meeting in the Minister's

office had been prepared to lay affidavits that the Minister conveyed

to them his helplessness in the matter, his impotency. I'm not

altogether sure that he was helpless because there was another course

of action he could have taken, a much more honourable course. That was

to simply send a note to the Premier saying, "Either you stay out of my

affairs, or you have my resignation."

That was the course which a Minister of Agriculture should have

taken, if he were living up to the highest honour of his office, when

improper pressure was applied to him by the Premier and president of

the executive council.

We speculated on the reasons why a Premier would so improperly

instruct one of his Ministers. We've suggested it, and certainly the

Member for Shuswap and the Member for Kamloops would be in the best

position of any to deny that.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, we've established one thing,

though it's never been admitted, and that is that there is a lot of

power down in that corner. Mr. Chairman, I'm hoping that as a result of

this debate the people down in that corner will learn to use their

power properly — use it on the floor of the House and not in making

deals with the Premier, not in the secret caucus committees that then

go and place the Premier in a position where he...

MR. LIDEN: We represent the people. We represent the people's interests.

MR. McGEER: ...feels obliged to improperly instruct his

Minister of Agriculture. Yes, he did that; that's what the Minister's

own memo said. That's

[ Page 700 ]

what the sworn affidavit said.

MR. LIDEN: Get back to your boardrooms.

MR. McGEER: The Minister was improperly directed by the

Premier. Now why would a Premier who's not a big man in eggs go to that

extent? Why, he'd only go to that extent if there were some other

muscle being applied on him.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Right on.

MR. McGEER: It goes from there to there to there to the Egg Marketing Board and then back to the public.

MR. LIDEN: You don't represent any egg farmers.

AN HON. MEMBER: A three-cushion shot.

MR. McGEER: A three-cushion shot, but they missed the pocket.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: They ripped the table, that's what they did. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: They knocked the end off the cue.

MR. McGEER: And they left the Minister behind the eight ball.

We're waiting, Mr. Minister, for the arrival time of the Premier of

this province. We don't like it; when the heat's on in the kitchen, the

Premier slips out.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Very, very busy in the most important debate of his career as Premier.

MRS. JORDAN: Maybe he's over muscling the board again.

MR. McGEER: The buck really stops at the Premier's office,

you know. We're voting on the Minister's salary right now. We're going

to come to his estimates, and there are a lot of questions that the

Premier is going to be asked, make no mistake about it.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): See, you get to ask them all over again.

MR. McGEER: We're just asking. We're just asking. Well, the

Premier is going to get his threats from the public of British

Columbia, where you'll be held to account for his actions in the final

analysis. But, Mr. Chairman, though we regret having to put forward

this motion of non-confidence to a Minister that in many ways has done

his job well, there comes a time, I suppose, in everyone's life, and it

has come in the life of this Minister, when backbone is more important

than anything else.

When that ultimate test came, the Minister failed. When he was asked to account for himself in this chamber, he failed again.

So, Mr. Chairman, I intend to support the motion put forward by the Liberal leader.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just a few remarks. This motion is not acceptable to the government...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...even though it's only $1, and we'd be

glad to pass the hat for the finest Minister of Agriculture this

province has ever had.

You know, the people spoke in an election — and this province does

not stop at Chilliwack. Really, is it right or democratic that people

in the north who want to raise eggs have got to buy quotas for $40,000

or $60,000 or $100,000 in order to be able to go into that secondary

industry and bring a few fresh eggs into the north? Should the farmers

of the Okanagan have to go and buy quotas from the Fraser Valley in

order to go into raising broiler chicks to feed their own people?

It's the Premier who insisted that we be fair to the whole Province

of British Columbia — that's what he was doing. And the Minister of

Agriculture was insisting that we be fair to the whole of the people of

the Province of British Columbia, not one little segment of it.

I just want to say this about the charges that there was

interference with an independent board: If there was interference with

an independent board, I suppose those gentlemen on the board would

resign, would they not? Would they carry on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sure they would.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no. They'd carry on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, old chap, sit down.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was a year-and-a-half ago. I don't remember them resigning or running to the press, or something like that. I

[ Page 701 ]

presume they carried out their duty and their

independent function. And if they didn't, they should have resigned.

Because if they went ahead and made a decision under pressure or

threats, or something of that kind, they would be derelict in their

duty, wouldn't they?

AN HON. MEMBER: They did resign. What's the matter with you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They went ahead and they were those

producers who had a bit of interest in the thing. So I think that

charge is just ridiculous. It is a smokescreen for the fact. It's a

smokescreen!

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There wasn't a peep from a chicken a

year-and-a-half ago when these terrible things were supposed to have

taken place. They stayed on, and if they acted under pressure they were

derelict in their duty.

So the real issue is simply this...and it was said by the Member for

Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) the other day. He said: "What you people

are doing is accusing the Minister of Agriculture of being fair."

That's the issue; and we oppose the motion.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We always enjoy it when the

Attorney-General stands and defends Ministers of the Crown. It reminds

us of the sterling defence given by Attorney-General John Mitchell of

Mr. Richard Nixon — and we know what happened to him.

If the Hon. Attorney-General had taken the trouble to look at the material...

MR. LIDEN: The Liberals are in real trouble now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...which was tabled in this House last

night, he would have seen that Mr. Brunsdon, who swore the affidavit,

saying that he w