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 8, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page 917 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates

Mr. Bennett — 917

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 918

Mr. Bennett — 918

Mr. Gardom — 918

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 919

Mr. Curtis — 920

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 920

Mr. Cummings — 922

Mr. Schroeder — 922

Mr. McGeer — 924

Hon. Mr. King — 925

Mr. L.A. Williams — 927

Mr. Chabot — 929

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 929

Mr. Smith — 930

Mr. Gibson — 931

Mr. Chabot — 934

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 934

Mr. Gardom — 935

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 935

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 938

Mr. D.A. Anderson (amendment) — 939

Mr. Bennett — 939

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 940

Mr. McGeer — 940

Hon. Mr. Lea — 941

Mr. McClelland — 941

Mr. L.A. Williams — 942

Mr. Wallace — 942

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 945

Mr. Gardom — 945

Hon. Mr. Lea — 946

Mr. Gibson — 946

Mr. McGeer — 947

Mr. Dent — 948

Hon. Ms. Young — 949

Mr. McGeer — 951

Division on amendment — 952

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 952

Privilege

Use of unparliamentary language.

Mr. Chairman — 954

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 954

Mr. Speaker — 954

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 954

Mr. Speaker — 954

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates

Mr. Phillips — 955

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 955

Mr. L.A. Williams — 956

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 960

Mr. Fraser — 964

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 965

Mr. McGeer — 965

FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like the House to welcome

two students this morning, Susan Antic and Ingrid Pincott, who

are here from the North Island Senior Secondary School at Port

McNeill. They arrived yesterday afternoon with their class at 3

p.m. and asked special permission from their teacher, Mr.

Parker, who is here with them, to be excused from the tour that

has been arranged for them today in order that they might come

back and see more of the work being done in this House. I do

hope the assembly will make them feel welcome.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

can't let the opportunity pass by without extending a very warm

welcome to Monsignor Michael O'Connell, who led us in prayers

just a few moments ago. He's a very good friend and a very fine

and sensitive churchman, in the true sense of the word, and a

man who I think has assisted more people in the greater

Victoria and southern Vancouver Island area in a quiet and

dignified way than we will ever realize. It's good to see him

here this morning.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I don't know if I can accuse the

Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) of reading my mind, but that's

exactly what I was getting up to say this morning. It's a great

pleasure for me to see Monsignor O'Connell with us this

morning. Monsignor O'Connell is a devoted Christian; a great

number of us legislators have seen him share his life and his

ideals and his principles with people of all walks of life.

Monsignor O'Connell can be seen talking to the very wealthy and

at the same day be on the picket line with the very poor. He's

a very active Christian who loves all people, and I am pleased

that he is with us today.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 2: Premier's office, $202,100.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman,

during this vote and during the agricultural estimates we've seen some

highly emotional statements made in this chamber. We've had some very

serious allegations repeated that were started by citizens of this

province through affidavit, through the agricultural estimates. We

found it very difficult to stay on the business of the estimates of

this House. And now again in the Premier's estimates we've had

difficulty staying on the estimates and being able to ask rational

questions and, indeed, receive any answers.

Emotions of this House on all sides have run high. The

reputation of this House is much in question not only in the

province, but in the rest of the country, as a place to make

rational decisions.

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: It's all right for the Minister of Lands and

Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) to say, "oh." Perhaps he prefers

it that way; I don't. I believe that this House and this

Legislature will not get down to serious discussion until the

matter at hand is resolved. We will have these emotions and

these types of speeches coming from both sides of the House

until such a time as this matter is taken out of this arena and

into an area where it can be decided.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to vote 2?

MR. BENNETT: Yes. I'm speaking on the events that have taken

place on discussion on this vote, Mr. Chairman. Great latitude

has been shown before, and I believe this Legislature wants to

get down to the business at hand. A great deal of discussion

has been spent on the allegations made in these affidavits, and

on the Premier's response to them. I believe it has impaired

and impeded the discussion of the business of this House and

these estimates.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): Your father was going to call it the United Party.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, ask that Minister

to be quiet.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Why don't you go peddle

your condominiums?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go get Granny a job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition continue?

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, as I've been trying to say....

[ Page 918 ]

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Well, I believe in allowing you, when the

Premier rattles your chain, to let you all have your chance.

It's this very attitude of not staying within the business of

the committee and the Legislature that has really got the

public concerned about what we do here. We're talking about

more than confidence in the Premier, or in the government — we're

talking about confidence in this Legislature to

adequately conduct the public's business.

As Leader of the Opposition, I'm concerned. While I haven't

played a prominent

part in the discussion of the charges, we

have tried to stay within the discussion of the estimates at

hand. So that we can get down to the discussion of the

estimates, and so that this Legislature can get back on track,

and so that we can discuss the issues of this province, I would

be pleased if the Premier would move a vote for a judicial

inquiry. I would be pleased as the Leader of the Opposition to

second such a motion so that this Legislature can get back to

the business at hand.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Watch your back. Look behind you.

MR. BENNETT: Well, I believe, rather than the smokescreens

thrown up by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) or the

smokescreens thrown up by other Members in this House, that the

public isn't happy with your antics, particularly that your

department has done nothing in the months you've been

Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address

questions to the Hon. Premier or Minister of Finance?

MR. BENNETT: Right, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for slipping

into the attitudes that are prevalent in this House. But I do

believe in all sincerity that the Premier can show leadership

as House Leader and Premier of the province by calling this

judicial inquiry, by removing this discussion from the House,

by taking it out of the realm of politics. Then this House can

return to the business at hand in running this province.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I

certainly agree that the House is probably not passing through

one of its finest periods here in British Columbia, and that we

should get on with the business at hand, which are the estimates

and the very important things involved in the Department of

Finance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would hope that the kind of insult, of

which we have just had an example from the Second Member for Victoria,

would not continue to degrade and lower this Legislature and the

process of parliamentary democracy any further in the eyes of our

citizens.

Now, there's a legitimate difference of opinion. We've had

frank statements made over about 10 days by the Premier; other

people have quoted affidavits, and even if I haven't read them

all, I've certainly listened to them all.

MR. FRASER: Instead of the affidavits, read that book.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And it's been debated in the Legislature

and discussed thoroughly. And don't forget that behind this — we're a

democracy — are the people; they are the judge and jury

of a thing like this.

I think it would be very difficult for any kind of an

inquiry whatsoever to come to any conclusion, really, as to who

had the best memory as to what was said a year-and-a-half ago.

That would be the result of any inquiry: who has the best

memory, the best recollection!

I really feel that the dignity of the Legislature is a bit

at stake here. This business of one Member calling another one

a liar, or hinting that another Member is a liar, has gone on

now for some 10 days. It's time to cap it and get on with the

important business of the House because there are terribly

important policy issues here in the Province of British

Columbia, and let's get on with that.

Both sides have made their positions very plain. Let's get

on with that public business and try, a little better than we

have been doing, to uphold the dignity of parliament.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I echo the Attorney-General's

sentiments, but I believe it's beyond this committee now to

resolve this situation. The only one who can resolve it and

bring some sense of discussion back to this Legislature is the

Premier by removing this discussion from the Legislature and

taking it to an independent inquiry. He has that power. He can

do it. He has an obligation to do it and we'll support him if

he'll do it.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman,

through you, to the Hon. Premier, and with response to a couple

of the remarks made by the Attorney-General, there's one other

thing at stake here that has really not been canvassed in the

House, and that's the rule of law. That's at stake.

Laws are meant to be obeyed. If a law is a bad law, it's supposed to

be changed, and we have the competence within this Legislature to do

that. But it

[ Page 919 ]

has still not been decided or agreed to by anybody

as to

whether or not the actions here of the marketing board,

resulting from the persuasion exercised by the Premier, are

intra vires. Does it have the power to waive a legitimate claim —

reduce a legitimate claim of $21,000 down to $7,500? There's

not a person in this Legislature who knows the reason for the

reduction. Is it a legal reduction or not? You don't know

that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They both have lawyers.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, that they both have lawyers has nothing to

do with whether or not this thing is a legal reduction or not,

and you know that, Mr. Attorney-General. There is nothing

before this Legislature to suggest that it is; and I must

conclude that it is not.

Now, resulting from that: are there other producers in the

Fraser Valley who are refusing to pay their levies today unless

they get an assurance from the government — the Premier or the

Minister of Agriculture — that there will no longer be

Kovachich incidents? I would suggest to you, Mr. Premier, that

there are such people who will not pay their levies until they

receive that assurance, because they say, "Look, I'm going to

abide by the law the way that it is written, providing other

people do."

Are you going to have a system depending upon what the

petition is to the Premier or to the Minister of Agriculture,

or are we going to follow the Natural Products Marketing

Act and the regulation issuing there from?

Mr. Attorney-General, that matter has never been discussed

in this Legislature; it has never been answered. I put this

question: as far as I know, the board did not have the legal

competence to do that, and I think that should be tested in the

courts. I can't bring an action like that, but I think it

should be incumbent upon the board itself to do it. Or any

producer could challenge the position taken by the board.

Now, if it is true that other people are withholding payment

of similar legal charges because they feel that there was

interference; you have a breakdown in the structure of society.

Make no mistake of that. If that is happening, you are not

legislating.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce): Mr. Chairman, I have not entered into the debate on the

Premier's estimates, but I feel I must do so now. The Liberal Members

of this House have talked a lot about justice. They have placed

themselves as the defenders of right and truth and justice. On the

other hand, they are willing to admit that the marketing board system

has been a failure. They are willing to say....

MR. GARDOM: It can't be replaced by discretion, Gary. You

know that.

HON. MR. LAUK: They are willing to say that there are

inadequacies of a grave nature causing injustices throughout

this province.

On the other hand, they say that the really important issues

are that the Premier may or may not have put some pressure on

some members of the marketing board. It reminds me very much of

the woman who was raped, being blamed by the judge for walking

down a dark alley. Whenever there is a substantive issue of

justice and together with it a minor one, it seems to me that

Members of the Liberal party will choose the minor one every

time.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Integrity!

HON. MR. LAUK: Where were they when for so many years there

were injustices in this province and in this country? Cultural

and financial barriers to the good life, you don't hear them

argue for these injustices, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, Gary. Right to sue the Crown,

auditor-general, Labour Code, Law Reform Commission....

HON. MR. LAUK: And it was not the New Democratic Party that

brought the iron heel of totalitarianism against the innocent

Quebec population some years ago. Oh no, it's not these major

issues of justice, Mr. Chairman, it's the minor ones. It's the

nit pickers. Give the Liberals a mile, and they'll take an inch

every time. (Laughter.) They are the protectors of privilege

and the privileged classes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

relate his remarks to the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your direction.

I will do so — it's just by way of

preamble to the Minister's

estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose side are you on?

HON. MR. LAUK: The big business corporations — they'll stand

up and defend them every time. They'll stand up and defend the

control of the marketing board system in this province, and

disguise it by using a little bit of a minor issue. It's

typical.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to stand up during

these estimates, but after the revelation of yesterday it

became clear to me why they were taking the approach they were

taking — a deliberate

[ Page 920 ]

cover-up for the backroom power-broking that's

going on in

this province. To deliberately deceive the voters of this

province that they voted for a particular opposition party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his

remarks to the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. LAUK: They are a negative opposition, Mr. Chairman.

What they are doing to this government with its progressive

policies, by nitpicking, carping criticism, the people of

British Columbia will decide, and they will decide in favour of

the government.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I indicated about

a week ago that I had been relatively quiet in this debate as

it has raged on for two weeks. But I do want to associate

myself with the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition, the

Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), when he says that

"because of this impasse, the business of this House is at a

virtual standstill and has been for a number of days."

Surely that's to be regretted by all of us who have been

sent here to do the business of the people of the Province of

British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: I'm looking forward to some helpful

interjections and some new lines from that particular Member,

Mr. Chairman; I choose to ignore them. But we are at a

standstill. The Premier is hurting, the office of the Premier

is hurting, and this is apparent to Members of his cabinet, to

Members of his caucus and, I think, to an increasing extent to

the people of the province.

The Premier has not looked comfortable this week. He has

looked extremely uncomfortable at times. I'm only sorry that we

couldn't turn the clock back a couple of days when it would

have been easier for him perhaps to stand here and say: "Yes, in

the first few weeks of my office, in an attempt to correct

something which has been bothering a lot of people in the

province for quite a while, I called some people together and

tried to put the thing in order."

That would have been very easy some time ago, very easy for

him to have taken as much time as is necessary to say: "Okay, I

was new. There was an awful lot to be done after 20 years of

one administration, and this is one where I wanted to help and

help quickly and move decisively."

I wonder why the Premier, or perhaps the Premier's pride,

would not let him admit that at any point through this entire

discussion, including the time that he returned from his visit

out of the province several days ago, or earlier this week.

Other Members of the opposition may not be prepared to accept that

kind of statement today, but I would be. I don't think it's too late

for him to stand up and clarify the situation, to make right what has

caused so much concern in the House and outside the House over these

last few days.

Yes, the Premier is hurting; and he can laugh it off, or one

of his Ministers can rise to his defence, but he is hurting,

the office is hurting, the Legislature has stalled, and there

is very important work to be done.

I think the thing really fell into place for me on Wednesday

evening after the gin rummy game, Mr. Chairman, when I saw the

late B.C. TV news between 11 and 12. A television crew had gone

onto the street to get some public reaction, and I imagine it

was pretty representative.

Some of the people who were filmed showed no interest in the

matter at all. Others felt that a lie had been told by someone.

Others were critical of the opposition. Others were critical of

the Premier. But the last clip, the last person to be shown in

that segment on B.C. television news, was an elderly lady, and

I gathered that she was on Hornby Street. She said, in answer

to the question: "Did you ever see a politician who didn't

lie?"

That's the issue. That is really the issue here today,

regardless of what party label we carry, or what we have done

in offices such as the Premier's office in discussing this

thing of so many months ago. This is the reason the leader of

the Liberal Party has found it necessary to go to the extreme

step — and I'm sure he hasn't enjoyed it — the extreme step of

being expelled from this House on two consecutive

afternoons.

A lady in Vancouver saying,"Did you ever see a politician

who didn't lie?" — that's a damning indictment of why we are

here and what we are trying to do. I suggest that there is one

man in this room this morning who can help put it right.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I've sat through

almost all of this and aside from the kind of threat that that

Member carries out on the radio and in the House — "More to

come, more to come" — there are certain Members I respond to in

different terms because there are certain Members, quite

frankly, who I judge differently on the basis of their

performance and their statements. I make no apologies for

that.

There are some people who I respond to and others I won't

respond to in this House — simply based on their performance

and their own record. I'm sure they feel the same way about me.

No one can come into this House without making judgments of

other people and their motivations. We all hold judgments of

people's motivations.

About politics, I'm a politician, and I'm proud to be a politician.

There have been times when I haven't

[ Page 921 ]

been proud about other politics and other

politicians, and

perhaps other politics and other politicians feel the same way

about me.

I've been in office now 14 years. It's much easier for me to

sit back and watch when someone else is in the kind of

situation that I'm allegedly in now. I've seen it both ways in

the House.

We're talking about a conversation — and I'll deal with that

now and then get on to some other comments — that took place 18

months ago. I've said very clearly what I recall of that

conversation. Someone else has said very clearly what they

recall of that conversation. Now beyond that, the traditional

aspect of a Member having his word taken in this House has been

completely forgotten by one or two singular Members of this

House, who have decided to go beyond the honourableness of a

Member to use that as a political issue.

Now I have said clearly.... And I notice, too, that the

Member changed his wording to "to the recollection to the best

of one's ability" or something to that effect. I've said

clearly, honestly and openly what I recalled of that

meeting.

It was a very emotional meeting. I did suggest that they

come together and I've said that before, and I've suggested, as

I said before, that they were acting like children. I wanted

them to effect a solution. I did not order a solution. I did

not give figures or suggest figures; I suggested that they work

out the negotiations between their lawyers.

I am the Premier of the Province....

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a legal assessment, wasn't it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I am the Premier of the

Province. I have to do my duty as I see it. Now obviously, the

opposition has to criticize the way I do my duty; otherwise

they wouldn't be a valid opposition. But I've never seen it

personalized this way, nor have I ever seen the office of the

Premier personalized this way.

Now there is absolutely no way that I am going to alter my

position because there is a matter of dignity of the Premier's

office involved here. If we allow this to continue to go on, it

means that every single time something goes on, we'll go

through the same process of: "He lied; you lied; I said; he

said." On a conversation 18 months ago, I've given my word to

this House, where I owe the obligation.

I don't understand anything beyond the desire of certain

Members to make this into a cheap political issue. The

accusation I make in that regard is based on the fact that

every step of the way one or two Members have gone out of the

House — not all — but one or two Members have gone out of the

House and gone to the press and said, "Today I'm going to do

this; I'm going to do this, and I'm going to do this."

And they've been on the radio saying: "I'm going to do this,

and I'm going to do this, and I'm going to do this." They've

locked themselves into action, prejudging the situation before

any debate took place in the House.

I stated very clearly my position. Yes, the people must

decide; it is a democracy. When we face an election, the people

will make that decision. But I tell you this: I will sit here

under the threat of the opposition that they're making day

after day after day, and I will sit here and do my duty and I

will not be threatened, cajoled or badgered into playing their

level of politics, Mr. Chairman, because it's degrading to this

House.

I've gone through a very comfortable few days, and I've

enjoyed the comments by many of the Members in the House. It is

only natural that there are charges and counter-charges and

secret meetings, and who was there and who wasn't there.

I'm not going to say that so-and-so was lying because he

said he wasn't at any meetings and someone else said he was at

meetings. We don't need a judicial inquiry on whether or not he

was lying at the meetings. Maybe it was just cocktail natter or

something. Or maybe it was by osmosis — maybe they came

together.

But I do know this, Mr. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson), through you, Mr. Chairman: one cannot help but

assume that part of the motivation is to pull the knife out of

your back in this particular debate.

You know, I've heard you go out and tell everybody ahead of

time, and say in the newspapers exactly what you are going to

do in this House. So regardless of what's said, you are locked

into a programme of political vilification. The Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has stayed out of it, and I respect

him for that. But you have locked yourself in to a planned

programme that you have said to the press before you come to

the House, and no matter what I have said, and no matter what

anyone else has said, you don't want to listen. You just want

to use this House for politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Political politics.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Political politics, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of the worst kind.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, of the worst kind.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm proud to be a politician.

Certainly I'm proud to be a politician. It is an honourable

profession. That's why I've never

[ Page 922 ]

shirked about discussion of salaries; nor have I

twisted

discussions of salaries, saying: "I'm against large salaries,

but don't send the money back." I've always been open on

salaries. I've always been open on responsibilities of

politicians. I've never shirked those kinds of issues — the old

round-robin system and avoiding discussion of what legislators

are paid.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the "round-robin" system?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the old round-robin system before

was used to decide a raise. I came in this House and that's how

it used to function. They had a circle with every MLA's name on

it, and you had to sign your initials on that round-robin thing

to show that if the salary raise went through you wouldn't

criticize it in the House. You wouldn't squeal.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, it was an old system in the House.

Yes, there was an old system. They used to have the

pinwheel.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Is that a fact?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's a fact. The old pinwheel

system.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ah, I know it wasn't in your time, but it

was here. No, Mr. Member, I've been straight about that, and

I've been straight about my attitude to politics.

I want to say that I'm prepared to do my duty as I see it. I

expect to be criticized, and I expect what has gone on here in

the last week will probably happen again when I'm in office. So

it doesn't upset me that much.

But I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, in finding that after

all of this debate there is really no substance other than my

opinion and someone else's opinion, and that the Members are

prepared to say, based on the honour of the Members in this

House, that you are not prepared to take my word. Fair enough.

I've said what I have to say. That is my word. You judge me,

and let other people judge me.

But I resent the very personalized kind of attack and the

sneering and the mockery made of this government and myself by

certain opposition Members who, in my opinion, will go low

enough to attack people personally. I exclude the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) because I am responding to

him on the basis of his statements.

Be that as it may, of all the tinker-toy issues in front of this

Legislature, nothing could be more petty than deciding on a difference

of opinion as the basis of stalling the work of this House and helping

the people of this province.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman,

I've lost weight, but for a while there I thought you weren't

going to notice me.

I am pleased to take my place because the word "integrity"

is very important. There was a man who represented South

Okanagan (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) for 30 years in this House that

had a lot of integrity, and part of it was loyalty.

Now, remembering back — let's see how important memory is.

Let's go back to November 17. I think it was in New Westminster

that 2,500 of a movement came together and elected a leader.

That's democracy, right? But no, 90 days later, a new party is

formed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CUMMINGS: Well, we're talking about loyalty and

integrity. They're related.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his

remarks to the Premier's estimates.

MR. CUMMINGS: My leader, the Premier, has been attacked on

the ground of integrity. I just want to remind other parties

what integrity is.

It's not just a handshake, like it is in the Liberals. I

think sincerely that the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) should get a lamp like Diogenes and go around. You

met this man — is he an honest man? "I met him once; he's

honest." Is that integrity?

I think that in this House time has been wasted too

long.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I, personally, will be glad

when this entire discussion comes to an end and we can get on

with the business of the Premier's estimates. I wouldn't like

to dilute in any way at all the importance of integrity and

honesty.

MR. CUMMINGS: And loyalty.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier and I have sat

across the chair from each other in this very room and talked

about these things. Until recently I don't think that there is

a person in all of the Province of British Columbia across

whose mind the thought has come that the Premier of our

province is dishonest. I don't believe that that is true. It

shouldn't have happened.

[ Page 923 ]

I would like to recommend that the Premier keep this record.

I'd like to recommend that he establish an inquiry so that this

question no longer exists, because unless he clears his name,

the people are going to have to judge. Mr. Premier, they are

going to have to judge, and I think if we are to take the

responses of the people, already there are a great number of

them who are no longer certain that the Premier has been

telling the truth.

My personal opinion is that there is no way that he could be

indicted. There is no proof that says he has lied. But there is

no proof that says he hasn't. Therefore I would like to suggest

to the Premier that he go the honourable route. He has nothing

to lose — at least I assume he has nothing to lose. Therefore

why not clear himself, Mr. Chairman, through the use of the

system, and let his name be honourable, not only in this House,

but in the province? I think he has nothing to lose, and I

suggest that he go this route.

I would further like to suggest, Mr. Premier, to you through

the Chair, that I would like to see the end of this discussion

for another reason. Long after we have resolved this problem of

the integrity of the highest office in this province, we still

will have to resolve the problem that has precipitated the

whole discussion.

I would suggest that the problem will still be here when we

have resolved this part of it. And I would like to suggest that

since the Premier's office has been involved one time, at

least, in the resolving of the real problem, I would think that

his office will be called upon again to make a judgment in this

regard. When it happens I would like to make some

suggestions.

First of all, I would like to say that I have had no

pressure — none. There has been not one letter from any

constituent in my constituency asking me to stand on their

behalf to get them an unfair share in the egg marketing or the

broiler marketing system. Not one.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): No, they got it 20 years ago.

MR. SCHROEDER: Therefore I must assume that the people of my

constituency are as interested in a fair distribution as I am.

I would like to say that the right or the licence to produce

foodstuffs should be distributed evenly throughout the

province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I think that we're straying into the

Agriculture estimates, which are now concluded. I'd ask you to

relate your remarks to the Premier's vote.

MR. SCHROEDER: I think, Mr. Chairman, you should allow me the

same latitude allowed the rest of the House. I'm making positive

suggestions. I know the Premier's office is going to be called again to

make a decision in this regard. Therefore, I would suggest that this is

going to fall squarely under this discussion, and I beg of you to give

to me the latitude that has been given to the rest of the House. Will

you do that for me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point I'm drawing you to

order on is the fact that you cannot request of one Minister

that he influence another Minister's decisions.

MR. SCHROEDER: Dare I suggest that that influence has

already taken place, that the Premier has been called upon to

make these decisions, that he has already used his office to

influence that decision, and that he will be called again to

use his influence? The people who are involved have gone past

the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm not concerned about what

happens between the Ministers; I'm concerned about what happens

in the House in terms of procedure. I'm simply saying that the

Member, in debating the estimates, cannot ask one Minister to

influence another Minister's actions.

MR. SCHROEDER: Right. When the broiler growers and the egg

producers come to your office, Mr. Premier, I would suggest

you say to them that we have to deal with the entire province,

not just with the Interior, not just with the constituency of

Chilliwack and Langley, but with the entire province. In

helping the province, we cannot say, "Okay, we'll hurt one

section in order to help another."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order, please. I would ask the Hon.

Member not to discuss matters which fall under the purview of

the Minister of Agriculture; rather to maintain and keep his

remarks confined to the administrative responsibilities of the

Premier.

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, this looks like

discrimination.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member questioning

the Chair for making a proper decision?

MR. SCHROEDER: No, I'm not questioning the Chair; I'm just

making a judgment on the basis of the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member is not satisfied with the

decision of the Chair, he may

[ Page 924 ]

appeal it. I'm simply ruling at this time that the

Hon.

Member cannot discuss matters which fall under the purview of

the Minister of Agriculture except as they pertain to the

actions or the responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I happen to know that the

Premier's office is going to be called upon to make a decision

in this regard, and I am giving what I believe to be a positive

suggestion as to what the Premier should take into

consideration when that time comes. If that's not part of the

Premier's responsibilities, then, Mr. Chairman, I don't

understand the process of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the marketing boards

fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the whole issue; that's the whole

issue.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I am not concerned about the actions

that take place between Ministers outside of this House. I'm

concerned only with what the Member is saying in his place.

That is that he's asking the Minister whose estimates we're

considering to influence another Minister's actions. I'm saying

that under the rules of the House, this is not allowed.

Otherwise we could be questioning every Minister about every

other Minister's estimates. This simply can't be done. So I

would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the

administrative responsibilities of the Premier or his past

actions.

MR. SCHROEDER: All right. When these gentlemen were called

to the Premier's office at the Premier's invitation, and the

Premier who made certain statements, according to the

affidavit, when he made those statements it would have been

wise for him perhaps to have considered that in trying to

absolve the problem he should have considered at least these

other factors. In trying to solve the distribution problem,

rather than to consider just segments of the province he should

have considered the province as a whole. I would have agreed

with him that the distribution of food products should be

considered as a whole and it is not proper to make a judgment

in regard to one area of the province with disregard to the

other.

In coming to a proper conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow me,

it would be far better to take into consideration the increased

consumption in eggs and broilers in the areas where this extra

consumption occurs and allow extra quotas to be assigned to those

areas. This way the quotas will not be taken from where they now exist

and placed in another area; rather the extra quotas will be assigned to

the new areas.

If we confiscate quota where it is now, then my opinion is

that we would have to make compensation for the perhaps $350 a

case paid for this quota. However, if we assign new quota to

new areas, then those new areas will have the opportunity to

produce the food in their own area as long as at the same time

we provide processing plants and packaging plants for them so

that it becomes economically feasible. I suggest that this is

the route you take.

As far as the whole deal with Mr. Kovachich and whether or

not he produced more eggs than his quota allowed, whether or

not he had a levy, whether or not he had a tax, whether or not

it was a fine he was asked to pay, whether or not it was right

for the Premier to allow a discount in this regard, let that

not be part of the conclusion. Let the conclusion be this:

let's come to a positive solution as to how we can solve this

thing. If not, then this war will range long after this

parliament ceases.

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

minutes ago, the Premier made a highly emotional speech in

defence of his office and of his conduct. He implied in. that

speech that the leader of the Liberal Party and some of the

Members of the opposition were making a mockery of this

Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, I resent that implication. I've said, as other

Members of the opposition have said, that no issue now or at

any time in the future will surmount that of integrity in

government.

Emotional speeches of the Premier will not wash away the

harsh facts laid before this assembly, nor can failure to

recall details of a conversation. No matter how discrepant

recollections may be, we are left with ugly realities that must

be faced.

The Premier in his defence, the Ministers of the Crown who

have joined that defence and the one or two backbenchers who

have joined in the defence have all told us that the marketing

system in British Columbia for eggs and broiler birds was

unfair. It may be. We on the opposition side are quite prepared

to concede that. But, Mr. Chairman, what was done in the

Premier's office and afterwards in an office under the

supervision of the Minister of Agriculture was not to change

the rules for egg marketing in British Columbia. What was done

was to give an individual favour to one producer in British

Columbia — one man at the meeting, a known supporter of the New

Democratic Party. That was not changing the general rules for

production in British Columbia; that was doing a personal

favour.

The Legislative Assembly sat in October of 1972; it sat in January

of 1973; it sat in October of 1973; it is sitting now in March of 1974.

During all of those

[ Page 925 ]

meetings of this Legislative Assembly, when the

laws could

have been changed and when these arguments could have been

prevented, not once was any attempt made to readjust this

marketing system. It was left, Mr. Chairman, an individual

favour to a supporter of the New Democratic Party.

MR. LIDEN: Do you support David Anderson?

MR. McGEER: The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) asks if I

support the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). Mr.

Chairman, there is only one leader in British Columbia today

and only one leader in this Legislative Assembly.

Unfortunately, it is not the Premier; it is the Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

MR. LIDEN: Now you've really gone overboard.

MR. McGEER: The Premier of this province has brought the

whole Legislative Assembly into question. He has done it, Mr.

Chairman...

HON. MR. LAUK: The leader of the pied pipers.

MR. McGEER: ...by consistently refusing to set for himself

the same standards as he has demanded of others. I refer to the

Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder); I refer to the Minister of

Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan); I refer to the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips); and I refer to the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland).

Each one of those Members has been dealt with either by

executive action of the Premier or by motion introduced in this

House. With the exception of the Member for Atlin, those

individual Members have had opportunities, or will have

opportunities, to state their case and have their names

cleared. We have appealed to the Premier to abide by the same

standards he has set for others.

If he is unwilling to do that, Mr. Chairman, then he does

lower this Legislative Assembly to the new standards he has set

for himself. I regret that, Mr. Chairman, deeply.

The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has made

statements outside of this chamber. He has given direct answers

to direct questions, as any Member should do, and as the

Premier has done on dozens of occasions in the corridors.

Mr. Chairman, the leader of the Liberal Party has not locked

himself into any course of action. On every occasion he has

pleaded with the Premier to take this matter out of the House

and put it before a judicial inquiry, where it properly should

be.

He has done one further thing, Mr. Chairman: he has staked his

personal seat on the outcome of that integrity. Will the Premier, Mr.

Chairman, do the same? We haven't heard that from the Premier. We

haven't heard from him the same standards of conduct that the leader of

the Liberal Party is prepared to set for himself.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I support the leader of the Liberal Party

as the leader of British Columbia, because he has set the

highest standards of anyone in the House. He has understood the

issue better than anyone in the House, and he has shown more

courage by far than the Premier of this province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have asked one direct question

repeatedly of the Premier, which he has never directly denied

nor agreed with nor pleaded amnesia for. He has never answered

that question. I repeat it once more. Did he or did he not say

to Mr. Brunsdon and the other members of the Egg Marketing

Board, "If you repeat a word of this outside my office, I will

deny every word I said"?

I want to hear an answer to that direct question, not an

emotional speech about, "I will do my duty as I see fit, and I

have done my duty." It has been established, Mr. Chairman, that

the actions taken by the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) and, through them, the Egg Marketing Board

were illegal actions not covered by any order-in-council or by

any piece of legislation passed in this Legislative Assembly.

The levies were legal levies.

MR. LEWIS: How do you know?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They were contested in court.

MR. McGEER: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) earlier today pointed out how this kind of action...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but he was wrong.

MR. McGEER: ...breaks down completely the ability of an Egg

Marketing Board to function. Why should any other member accept

treatment that was different than that accorded to the friend

and supporter of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Sy Kovachich?

Can the Attorney-General answer that question? Let him answer

so directly, and let the Premier deal with the one question I

have repeatedly asked him: did he or did he not say to Mr.

Brunsdon and the other members of the Egg Marketing Board, "If

you say anything about this outside my office, I will deny

every word of it"?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Well, I have listened

to this debate for quite a number of days now too. I quite

frankly find it regrettable that we see the House degenerate

into the posture of

[ Page 926 ]

Members hurling all kinds of rather insulting

accusations

across the floor at one another. The Member who just took his

seat made the comment that the Legislature has been reduced to

the level which the Premier has set for himself. You know,

that's a particularly insulting remark.

MR. GARDOM: It might be flattering; it's how you look at

it.

HON. MR. KING: It certainly indicates that the Liberal Party

has convicted the Premier of some misdemeanor without any

investigation or without...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): That's all we want — just an

investigation.

HON. MR. KING: ...being prepared to accept any explanation.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has not given one.

HON. MR. KING: The Premier has, on a number of occasions,

specifically denied the charges contained in the affidavits.

You know, I just want to reiterate for the House the position

that the Premier or any Minister is in, and particularly my own

position when I become involved in labour disputes in the role

of mediation, which this House expects me to do — which,

indeed, the public of British Columbia expects me to do when

all other avenues fail.

I don't think there would be any criticism whatsoever if I

used my office to prevail, to cajole or even to lean on the

parties to take a more responsible position so that a

settlement might be consummated and a strike averted.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I plead guilty to doing that. I

certainly have laid the wood to many groups and to trade unions

to have them take a more responsible position, a more

conciliatory position, to resolve their differences.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you saying that's what he did?

HON. MR. KING: Now the Premier has said to you that he

suggested these people were acting like children; they should

go out and resolve their differences. They had legal counsel;

both were represented by legal counsel. If there is anything

improper in that posture, I certainly don't discern it. I

hardly think it justifies the kind of climate that has been

developed here that some criminal conspiracy took place.

What is it all about? It's a question of trying to resolve a

difference in the farming community between an Egg Marketing Board that

was under heavy fire and criticism by the people that it represented

and the interests of the individual farmers in the north and in the

Interior of the province.

Now if we're going to say to the Premier or any Minister

that it's too dangerous a role for you to play to try and help

people to resolve their problems, then you are saying to me as

the Minister of Labour that I cannot ever again, for fear of

being charged with some indiscreet use of political muscle, use

my office in an effort to try to bring about a harmonious

climate in industrial relations in this province.

If a trade union walks out of my office, discontented with

the settlement they have achieved, and says that "King leaned

on us; King put the hammer on us," and swears an

affidavit to that effect, where do we go then — through a

judicial inquiry?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you tell the truth.

HON. MR. KING: Go through a House committee? I certainly

will tell the truth as the Premier is doing. But the point is I

have in fact done this kind of thing. I've done it from the

outset of taking over this office. Are you reasonably

suggesting that I should remember every conversation that took

place in my office? Some of them were hot; some of them were

not. If you're going to demand that I precisely recall every

word spoken in those discussions, then the only answer is that

you are suggesting I should tape the meetings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

HON. MR. KING: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) has referred to the Watergate. He's tried to relate

this silly, petty incident to the Watergate. That is childish;

that's just plain foolishness.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the same principle.

HON. MR. KING: But, by golly, I think the real danger here

is that if we go the route he's suggesting, the government

people, Ministers and the Premier would have no alternative but

to precisely record every conversation held in their office — because

that would be the only line of defence.

Let's examine, Mr. Chairman, what the possibilities are of

an inquiry. Let's examine what the possibilities are. A trade

union comes forward and says I used my office and my influence

improperly to effect a settlement. They swear out an

affidavit.

If we go through a House committee and I stand accused of

improper conduct and impropriety in the use of my office and

I'm vindicated, the opposition are quite free as they have done

in the past to cry, "It was established on partisan political

lines; it wasn't a fair adjudication of the question."

[ Page 927 ]

So the only other avenue is by judicial inquiry that someone

has suggested. What could be the probable results of a judicial

inquiry into a question of that nature: a charge by a union

against me, and my retraction to the best of my knowledge,

based on my honour in this House, that I acted properly. There

is no conclusive evidence; there's no record, verbatim or

otherwise. It's simply the word of one or two people on one

side against the word of one or two people on the other

side.

Let's presume that civil servants were involved: my Deputy

Minister of Labour. I think it would be fair to suggest that he

might support my point of view as a description of what took

place.

Where, then, would that leave us? You could only have an

inconclusive report and conclusion arrived at. They would be in

the position, then, when the opposition would say: "Well, the

Minister leaned on his Deputy to support his case."

So there is absolutely no avenue; there is no way a question

of this nature can be determined conclusively in any way. It's

a man's word against another's. The whole problem is that the

Liberals are completely unwilling to accept the word of the

Premier under any circumstances. They have an escape hatch, no

matter which route they suggest the government go on this

question. If it's the house committee route, they shriek

partisan politics.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've never done that.

HON. MR. KING: If it's a judicial inquiry, they could allege

that civil servants had been whipped into line by the

government. So it shows that there's absolutely no valid,

reasonable way that a clear and conclusive determination can be

made on this question. It's simply a man's word against

another's.

The leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) agrees,

I'm sure, that when a Member gets up in this House and gives

his word, that word should be taken unless conclusive evidence

can be tabled in this House that he has, in fact, lied. That

just is not the situation. It may be the situation in the

Liberal leader's mind, but I suggest that it's unsupported by

any conclusive evidence, and it's even unsupported, I would

suggest, by the majority of British Columbians.

So I would suggest, in all deference to all Members'

feelings, that we leave this rather phony issue and get back to

the business of the House. Certainly I have programmes under my

department that I would like to see estimated with some

searching scrutiny by the opposition. Let's get on with the

business and provide the service to the people of British

Columbia that we were elected to perform.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): The Minister

of Labour has put a proposition before this committee which cannot be

left unchallenged. He

said we were not prepared to accept the word of the Hon.

Premier on any basis. That just is not true, Mr. Chairman. We

are obliged under the standards of conduct in this House to

accept the word of an Hon. Member unless it's challenged.

HON. MR. KING: How can it be resolved?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll come to that in just a moment.

"Unless that word is challenged." I think that's precisely the

issue we have here. The Hon. Premier has stood in this House

and made statements, unsworn, unsubstantiated by his Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who was at the meeting. (He

has been strangely silent.) Against that we have the sworn

statements of two citizens of this province, tabled in this

House. If the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has not

seen fit to read those sworn statements, then I suggest it is

time that he take that opportunity.

It creates the conflict which leads us into a position where

we have some basis to compare the statements made by the

Premier here in this House. We've chosen to accept the sworn

statements of two individuals who have no axe to grind, no

position to take.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Minister of Labour also suggests

that the House committee would be a fruitless method of

resolving this, and everyone on all sides of the House agrees

with that. But for the Minister of Labour to suggest that a

commission of inquiry where all people would come and give

their evidence under oath is not a way to resolve the situation

indicates quite clearly why the Minister of Labour in his

various actions in this House has seemed to shy away from the

courts. He doesn't understand the basis of proof; he doesn't

understand the consequences of false testimony under oath.

MR. CUMMINGS: How about loyalty?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He doesn't understand that if his Deputy

Minister, as he suggests, came before a commission of inquiry,

the Deputy Minister would be sworn — and I don't care what kind

of pressure the Minister placed upon his Deputy — that Deputy

would tell the truth. That's the way these things are

resolved.

To suggest we have to tape every meeting is absolutely

ridiculous. Every day, Mr. Chairman, — and the Minister of

Labour knows this well — citizens of this province, of this

nation, who are in conflict with other citizens and in conflict

with their governments, appear before judges in the courts

[ Page 928 ]

our land, and those differences are resolved based

upon sworn

testimony, which in most cases does not involve any recording.

It depends upon the recollection of individuals and the

standards of proof which are the result of centuries of

experience in British law.

To suggest the commission of inquiry would not resolve this

difficulty is incompetent on the part of that Minister. To

suggest that after a commission of inquiry were held and sworn

testimony were given and a finding is made by the commissioner,

that Members of this House could suggest there were some

influence, some error in that commission, indicates that the

Minister does not know what contempt means.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, we've witnessed it the last while.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Contempt. Legal contempt. Because this is

precisely the position that an individual would find himself in

if he were to challenge the actions of the commission.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Why don't you go and have an egg

sandwich?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Let's come back to the issue which again

the Minister of Labour has tried to cloud. We know he meets in

his office with groups; no question about that. Under the laws

of this province he has the right, the authority, indeed the

obligation, to do so. But what we have here is not the Premier

meeting with the Egg Marketing Board; only with two members of

the board. It was not for the purpose of discussing with those

members changes the government contemplated in order to make

the board work properly as the Premier saw it. It was not

designed to inform the members of the Egg Marketing Board that

the government proposed to introduce changes in the scheme in

line with the Garrish report to which the Premier has referred.

That's not the purpose of the meeting, Mr. Chairman — and the

Minister of Labour knows full well. The purpose of the meeting

was to resolve a conflict between one egg producer and the

board. The one egg producer, Mr. Chairman.... Let me stop

there.

The Minister says that's not true. Was the Minister of

Labour at the meeting? I'm relying upon sworn statements. Is

the Minister of Labour prepared to swear that he knows what

took place in that meeting? Has he been advised? On whose

recollection has he been advised?

Has he talked to the Minister of Agriculture who was present?

Because the Minister of Agriculture doesn't recall. The Minister of

Agriculture has been guilty — no, not guilty — he's been drinking the

milk of amnesia; this is what the Minister of Agriculture has been

doing.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) does not know, so he

can't say that that's not true. But I'll tell you that Mr.

Brunsdon knows what happened. He was there, and he's given sworn

statements as to what took place. Mr. Unger was there, and he's

given sworn statements as to what took place. We have not had a

denial by the Premier of those sworn statements. He has not

stood in this House or any place else and denied the statements

in those affidavits.

It was suggested earlier in the debate across the floor from

the Attorney-General that what was to be resolved was a dispute

between this one egg producer — that's admitted — and the board...of a

court case. Why would the Premier of the province

interfere in the settlement of a matter between the board and a

producer, which was in the courts of this province? Are we now

being told by the Attorney-General that the Premier is

interfering with the courts of this province? Is he going to

interfere with the rights of the citizens to have their

remedies in the courts of this province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's what you said.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was a contested thing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A contested thing, and the Premier said,

according to a sworn affidavit, "There'll be no court case."

That's what the Premier said in connection with Sy Kovachich,

and it's sworn by Mr. Brunsdon. Don't you believe Mr. Brunsdon,

Mr. Chairman through you to the Attorney-General? If you don't

believe Mr. Brunsdon, Mr. Attorney-General, then I suggest that

you have a responsibility under the law to have him answer for

these sworn statements.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, how do you know? Have you made an

investigation as to whether he knew they were false? Did he

make them knowing them to be false? Have you taken any steps at

all? A public inquiry will establish not only whether they were

made, knowing them to be false; it will establish whether the

Premier is telling the truth, and it will establish whether or

not the Premier's office Was being used for influence. Of

course it will.

[ Page 929 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will establish who has the best

memory, that's all.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh! Who has the best memory?

Then are we to understand from the Hon. Attorney-General

that in his view of the resolution of problems of this kind, if

the Egg Marketing Board's memory happens to be very good, and

the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture find it convenient

to have a bad memory, somehow or other that excuses the Premier

and the Minister of Agriculture?

The Attorney-General, a very competent counsel, practising

in the courts of this province, knows perfectly well how

carefully matters of truth are searched out in the courts of

this land. Is what I'm saying untrue, Mr. Attorney-General?

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, I take that back. Mr. Chairman, I'm

happy to withdraw the words "good counsel." The

Attorney-General feels embarrassed by that.

But let us not be distracted by this wit from the

Attorney-General. He too has failed in his responsibility in

this matter. He has failed most miserably as the chief law

officer of the Crown, as the government's lawyer, to advise the

Premier how this matter can be resolved. It's a clear issue

between the Premier, his office and citizens of this province.

I urge the Hon. Attorney-General to reconsider, advise the

Premier, and take the only action that can remove this cloud

from this issue and from the Premier's office.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, I haven't

had much to say on this matter; but I do stand in my place

today and ask for a public inquiry on this matter, because

there is a terrible cloud of suspicion over the highest office

in this province, and that is the office of Premier.

Never before has a Premier in this province been called a

liar — been called a liar inside this assembly and outside as

well. It's very degrading, in my opinion, for that office,

regardless of who is holding that position, to be accused, the

way it is accused at this time, of not telling the truth.

I think there's a very genuine need to clear the air in this

province as to who is telling the truth in this matter. It's

not a question as simple as the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King) might interpret it to be, as to a conflict of opinion.

But it is that shadow of suspicion which the Premier of this

province has been facing for the last several days, and that

suspicion will not evaporate.

That suspicion will be over his head, unless there is a public

inquiry, forever after. It's not only demeaning; it's debasing. It's a

lowering of the esteem for the position of Premier in the Province of

British Columbia, to have this cloud of suspicion over the Premier's

head.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: This is the first time I've heard some chit-chat

from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

R.A. Williams) over there. But this is the first time that I've

stood and said anything on this issue.

I'm not going to call the Premier a liar — definitely not — because

I recognize him as a straightforward, honest and

reputable individual. But his name and the position of the

Premier has been jeopardized, and there is definitely a need to

remove this doubt which exists today. The only way this doubt

can be resolved is by a public inquiry.

If the Premier believes that he is telling the truth, and I

know he does, then by all means let's have the inquiry. Let's

resolve this issue once and for all, and get on with the

business of running the affairs of the people of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: The comments of the Member for Columbia River

are apparently reasonable, but there are some points that I

could raise in questioning his approach to this particular

problem, or alleged problem.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams), however...his remarks cannot go unanswered. He is

a lawyer; we all know he is a lawyer. He spoke, apparently with

knowledge, about judicial inquiries, apparently with knowledge

about the law of evidence, hinting at some knowledge about the

trial system.

But I confess that he betrays a lack of knowledge that makes

me fear that if Ottawa, in its wisdom, appointed him a judge,

someone would have to lead him by the hand to show him where

the courthouse was.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Are we going to rely on your experience

now?

HON. MR. LAUK: I have a great deal more experience in the

courtroom, my friend, than you have.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): And he's never stabbed his

leader in the back.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm sorry to be distracted by the Member's

comment, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to point out in a practical

way where he has made his mistake in outlining what a judicial

inquiry is, and his knowledge of the law.

[ Page 930 ]

In the British parliamentary system, which from it, and

coincidentally, grew our system of British jurisprudence, the

questions of credibility of Members of parliament are judged

and kept within the four corners of the House always. That is

the rule. That is the convention. Members' credibility within

this House and their actions in office are kept within the four

corners of these walls unless some criminal act has been

committed, and then a charge is duly laid and the judicial

process takes place.

Now why is that so, Mr. Chairman; why is that so?

MR. GIBSON: Nonsense.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's not nonsense. You just have to read your

constitutional law and you would know; but you haven't,

obviously.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Spencer inquiry?

HON. MR. LAUK: The Spencer inquiry concerned a person that

was not a Member of the House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: It concerned a person who was not a Member of

the House. That shows you how much you do not know about the

parliamentary system in this country.

Mr. Chairman, let me say this: Why is it a rule of the House

that questions of credibility and a Member's honour are

maintained within the four walls here? Because there's a

principle in the British parliamentary system which says that

parliament is supreme; they are the law makers of the land and

they, in effect, will not be judged by the courts of which they

are masters.

Now, what happens if we have a judicial inquiry, as

suggested by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

and the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams)? You are placing one man as judge of the credibility

of a Member of this House, which has never historically been

tolerated. Never. If there's a question of credibility, this

House judges it. This House judges it, and nowhere else. And in

the final analysis, the people of British Columbia judge

whether this House was correct or not. That's the system of

British parliamentary action. You do not put yourself or any

Member of this House before a court of law. That has been

respected on this side of the House, and it should be respected

on that side of the House, because it works both ways, Mr.

Chairman. We can have countless judicial inquiries. And what

will happen when we have a judicial inquiry? One man will make

a judgment, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll tell you what's wrong with that, Mr.

Member. One man, in the last few days, has already made a

judgment. A man with a legal background, a man with some sort

of experience in life — he's made a judgment. He's made a

judgment hearing one side of the case and hearing the denial by

the Premier. And he has the hypocrisy to stand up in this House

and demand a judicial inquiry. "A solemn inquiry into the

truth," says the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. A

solemn inquiry into the truth, when already his own leader has

made a judgment on his own.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw the word "hypocrisy" as applied to an Hon. Member of

this House.

HON. MR. LAUK: If it's unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, I

withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear what would happen at such a

judicial inquiry: they would call as witnesses the members who

have filed their sworn affidavits and filed them on this table;

they would call as witnesses the Premier, and various civil

servants would appear before them. And we'd have a lawyer such

as the Second Member for West Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

who I read in Hansard as saying: "Were you or were you not 10

feet from the Minister of Agriculture? Were you having tea?

Were you wearing a polka-dot tie?" And he went on and on. He

was playing junior Perry Mason, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a simple issue, and they don't

understand it yet.

HON. MR. LAUK: There'd be a question of credibility, and

then the judge — or whoever's appointed to make such a judicial

inquiry, whom I assume would be a judge — would do the job of

this House in deciding its own destiny, its own credibility.

It's a denial of the democratic system to call for a judicial

inquiry. Otherwise, the situation, as outlined just a few

minutes ago by the Minister of Labour, would concern every

Minister on this side of the House. It would only bring into

question whether or not this House can control its affairs and

legislate for this province according to the democratic

system.

If you realize that, then I say your call for a judicial

inquiry, Mr. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, through you,

Mr. Chairman, is an attempt to sabotage the workings of this

House.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): All during the time that

we have been engaged in the debate on the estimates of the Minister of

Finance and Premier of this province, I have tried to limit my remarks

[ Page 931 ]

issues that I genuinely feel I have an opinion on

or ideas

different to those expressed and the policies expressed by the

Premier. Though, at this time I want to deal for a few moments

with this whole matter that has really come to a head these

last few days.

Prior to the time I was able to get your eye, Mr. Chairman,

the Minister of Labour entered into the debate. I hope when the

Minister of Labour used phrases like "a silly, petty incident"

and a "phony issue" that was just an unfortunate choice of

words because, really, what we have is neither a silly, petty

incident nor a phony issue.

We have before us, in sworn testimony affidavits — the word

of two men, a Mr. Brunsdon and a Mr. Unger, who make very

specific allegations as to coercion by the chief person in the

government of this province, namely the Premier — that they

were coerced by him to do certain things in a certain

manner.

The Premier has indicated time and again that he does not

recall using any force, coercion, or in any way directing or

instructing these people. Yet the same person has consistently

refused to go the one step that would allow an independent

judicial inquiry to settle the matter once and for all.

The reason that we are at this impasse, as I see it this

morning, is that there is a cloud involved with respect to

whether the people who swore the affidavits, or the Premier

himself, is telling the truth. I suggest that the matter of

this chicken-and-egg war, as it's been referred to in this

House, is really just an outward manifestation of a much deeper

problem in the Province of British Columbia. It's an outward

manifestation of a problem that we are faced with today as a

result of what I would term cavalier adventurism on the part of

the present government and some of the Ministers of the

Crown.

There's been a departure from the standard practice and

procedure of taking the responsibility and the oath of office

as a very serious matter on the part of some of the cabinet

Ministers in this province. That is reflected in the eyes and

the minds of the public today.

There's been a trend towards adventurism in the marketplace.

There's a trend toward adventurism in the purchase of companies

entirely unrelated, really, to the business of government.

There's a trend toward assigning absolute control to boards

which, once they are established, are no longer responsible to

this Legislative Assembly. We place them outside of the law of

the province, and in some cases the weight of the majority of

government has passed laws that actually place certain boards

in this province above and beyond the call of the courts of

this land.

This is why I feel this particular matter has all come to a head,

that there's a centralization of this as a result of a conversation

which took place in the Premier's office. The incident itself is not

the important issue. It's really just a centralization and a

crystallization of a number of incidents which have been very

disturbing to the public of this province.

It would seem to me that the Premier, in order to restore

the confidence of the people in the highest office of this

province, would take seriously the recommendation of the Leader

of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) when he has called for a

judicial inquiry into this whole matter. It's a serious

request, and, as the Premier well knows, those of us who have

engaged in the debate of his estimates from the official

opposition have not tried to smear the position of the Premier,

or in any way suggest that we were trying to capitalize on an

event which was unfortunate.

But, in my opinion, we're now at the place where something

more must be done than just to try to wash the issue away. It

won't wash away. I would suggest once more that the only way

the issue now be resolved is for the Premier to call a judicial

inquiry into the matter.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the

Hon. Member for North Peace River in this debate. One of the

characteristics, I think, of the debate as it has been

developing in the last couple of days, one of the significant

points, is that each of the opposition parties has come to

support this call for a public inquiry. I think that by now

virtually every Member of the opposition has stood in their

seat and personally supported this concept. I'm going to dwell

on it a little further.

I'm sorry the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has left his seat because I wanted to

comment on something he said. I was surprised to see him giving

a lesson in the law to the distinguished counsel from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). I won't attempt to

tell him the law, but I do have sufficient knowledge to read a

statute.

When the Hon. Minister says that the Public Inquiries Act

is not the right way to resolve a question of this kind, he

clearly hasn't read the Public Inquiries Act , which

notes, among other things, that: "Whenever the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council deems it expedient to cause inquiry to

be made into

and concerning any matter relating to the election of any

member of the Legislative Assembly, past or present, or into

and concerning any matter connected with the good government of

the Province, or the conduct of any part of the public

business thereof...."

That's a part of the terms of reference of the Public Inquiries

Act , which of course is

an Act passed by this

House under the authority of the Legislature. For the Minister

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to pretend that a

commissioner under this Act is not competent to go into this

matter

[ Page 932 ]

simply shows that he hasn't read the law.

The Act says further that such a commission of inquiry:

"...shall report to the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council

what they find with reference to the matters comprised within

the inquiry.

"

(2) Every report which Commissioners make to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council under this Act

shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within fifteen

days after the report is made, if the Legislative Assembly is

then sitting, or if not, then within fifteen days after the

opening of the next session of the Legislative Assembly."

So it is quite clear that the Legislature is supreme and

that the Legislature decides what view it will take of that

report.

I'm glad the Minister is coming back now. Perhaps he'll take

the opportunity of reading those remarks. If he has a copy of

the Public Inquiries Act behind him, he might look it up

for himself right now.

Mr. Chairman, it has been possible during this debate to

become very emotional about this issue in this House. But if

you talk to the people in the real world, they aren't really

very emotional about this issue. If you talk to the housewives

and the taxi drivers and the person on the street, what do they

say? They don't get excited about it. They say, "Oh, maybe the

Premier lied. But all kinds of politicians lie. What's new

about that?" And that is sad, Mr. Chairman. Anything that

contributes to that kind of thinking in the Province of British

Columbia is sad.

I'm a brand-new MLA, and there are a lot of things I have to

learn about this House. But I do know that it shouldn't be a

place where people come to tell lies to each other. I know that

much. The label "politician" should be an honourable one. Many

Members in this House have worked to make it so; and I think

few have worked harder to make it so than the Premier, over the

many years he has been in this House. The Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King),

who spoke earlier, and many, many Members in this House have

worked to add as much shine as they could to the word

"politician."

So if a politician makes a mistake — and in that, Mr.

Chairman, I would include the Premier — why not admit it and

retain that honour? Surely the Premier's honour is more

important than a temporary embarrassment — which it would be — or than

the Premier's dignity, which he mentioned this morning.

These things are important, but honour and a man's word are

more important.

If you look at the elements of this case, there are three elements.

There is an allegation — and, in my view, a probability — that this has

been, from time to time, a government which has pushed people around in

meetings behind closed doors, and sought to do things, and caused

organizations and persons in this province to do things by secret

muscle that they should have had the guts to stand up and do in public.

All the power in the world to direct the marketing boards is contained

in the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act , but

they

chose not to go that public route. So that's the first issue.

The second issue is the matter of the Premier's word and the

fact that four affidavits were sworn; four affidavits which are

at direct odds on several points with the quite clear

recollections of the Premier in Hansard about meetings

and what he did or did not direct to be done.

And then there is Mr. Kovachich, Mr. Chairman. We couldn't

get answers from the Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) about Mr.

Kovachich and how it happened that, as a result of that meeting

in the Premier's office, his assessment, his fine, his levy was

reduced. We couldn't get answers from the Premier. But

strangely enough, last night we got some answers from the

newspaper. The Vancouver Sun of March 7 tells us some

things about Mr. Kovachich and the history of this case that we

have been trying to get from the government for well over a

week now. I would just like to give a little bit of that

history.

According to The Vancouver Sun of March 7, Mr.

Kovachich

"...started his farm in 1966 with 4,000 birds and

increased the size to 6,000 later in the year. That was before

the Egg Marketing Board was formed...."

The board, when it was formed in 1967, apparently allotted

him a quota of 52 cases,

"...enough to take care of his 6,000 layers at that

time,

with the promise that the quota would increase as the local

market expanded....

"After Kovachich attracted widespread publicity in the

local

media, the board reluctantly boosted the quota to 80 cases

while issuing a letter to the press attacking Kovachich....

"In 1969-70

Kovachich began expanding again but this time was

faced with firm opposition from the board, which insisted that

if he wanted to increase production, he would have to buy out

somebody else's quota."

Though it's a question here as to whether that is

right or

wrong, that's a question which has been gone over often. I'm

talking now about the case of what favours were given.

"Kovachich ignored the board's refusal and began

overproducing by an estimated 30 per cent. The board, in turn,

slapped him with a penalty of 20 to 30 cents for every dozen he

produced over his quota.

"The penalty, in addition to the board levies that

Kovachich

stopped paying in 1971, amounted to $21,300."

[ Page 933 ]

This coincides, of course, well with the amount

alluded to

in the affidavit filed by Mr. Brunsdon and the other affidavit

filed by Mr. Unger.

"After Kovachich refused to pay any part of that sum,

Morgan" — that would be the secretary of the Egg Marketing

Board — "visited Dawson Creek and met Randall. That meeting

resulted in Tuesday's affidavit" — referring to another

affidavit concerning the conduct of the secretary of egg

board.

But on the matter of the fines:

"The board took the issue to court, and Kovachich was

preparing to appeal in provincial court in Vancouver when the

New Democratic Party won the provincial election in August,

"According to Kovachich, the board agreed to an

out-of-court

settlement on October, 1972, shortly after the new

administration took office....

"Under the terms of the out-of-court settlement,

Kovachich's

penalty was cut to $7,500 from $21,300 and could be paid in

$125-a-month instalments for five years at 5 per cent interest."

That is a rate of interest which many people in British

Columbia would like to have the advantage of. The ordinary

person, of course, wanting to build a house in British Columbia

can't get funds from the provincial government at 5 per cent

interest.

"In addition, Kovachich was granted a permit to

produce 120

cases a week on top of his 80-case quota."

Now that's a very

interesting figure. I wish the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis) was in his seat because he could perhaps enlighten us.

He said in the House the other day that his 140 cases were

worth $42,000. A quota has that kind of value, which would

imply that a case of quota is worth $300. If it is true that

Mr. Kovachich was granted — oh, there's the Hon. Member for

Shuswap. He may be able to confirm this.

If it's true that Mr. Kovachich was, in fact, at that time

granted a permit to produce 120 cases a week on top of his 80

cases a week, then in addition to the benefit of $13,800 that

came from the reduction in the fine, what we would seem to have

here is another benefit to Mr. Kovachich of $36,000 — if that's

what egg quotas are worth.

Now it may be that this increase in quota would have been

awarded according to the natural march of events. But we

haven't been able to get any Member of the government to stand

in his place and say that, or even give us this much

detail.

Now there's obviously a very serious situation here. The story says

that the northern egg producers association claims there were 70 to 80

producers, northern egg producers, in 1967 and that there are now only

six or seven, and that this group has apparently voted to withdraw from

the Egg Marketing Board and began withholding their board fees January

Mr. Chairman, when the government has had the Garrish report

since October, 1972, as the Premier has advised us, which

recommended that things be done to improve the administration

of the Egg Marketing Board, which the government has the power

to do in law through the Natural Products Marketing (British

Columbia) Act , and when they have let this situation happen

where 70 to 80 northern producers have dwindled down to six or

seven, and when they say that they have been doing the things

that they have been doing to assist the egg producers, that

story somehow doesn't ring entirely true with me.

What particularly doesn't ring true is the Kovachich

question and the apparent benefits which he received from the

government and the fact that he was a supporter of the

government. It is a very curious coincidence.

I'd like to ask the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman — Members on

this side have asked the Premier many questions; I

don't think he has been asked this one yet — has the Premier

met face to face with Mr. Kovachich on this subject? Or has he

discussed this subject with him by telephone, or by

correspondence? I hope the Premier will answer that question

later on.

Earlier on in this debate the Premier said very clearly what

he recalled about this meeting in 1972. He does seem to have

quite a good recollection, but it doesn't seem to be complete.

Then he went on to say,"Somebody else has said very clearly

what he recalls." In fact, two other people have said very

clearly what they recall in sworn affidavits that coincide

remarkably closely.

Then the Premier went on to say that some Members of the

opposition have chosen not to take his word over the other

words. Surely, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, you

would agree with me that the fact of directly conflicting

words, and the fact that part of the conflict consists of two

sworn affidavits, at least raises a question about your

word.

The Premier has referred to the desire of certain Members of

this House to make this into a cheap political issue. I would

say the opposition is dealing with this issue pretty seriously,

Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) said that we are

trying to convict the Premier without an investigation. Mr.

Minister, that's all we want — an investigation. The Minister

of Labour said that the Premier has specifically answered the

questions. The Premier has not specifically answered the

questions. If the Minister would study the affidavit, he would

know at once that the Premier had not.

The Premier yesterday in this House, Mr. Chairman, accused

the opposition of having made a

[ Page 934 ]

"calculated political move," and he had reference

the fact that the leader of the Liberal Party stood up in this

House and told the truth and was seeking the truth.

What methods would the Premier suggest for getting at the

truth in this case? He has refused an inquiry. He's refused a

committee. He's refused the possibility of witnesses being

called to the bar of this House. He has refused to answer

questions himself.

There are four people out of two meetings who have sworn

affidavits. Then there's the Premier and the Minister of

Finance. Then there are another 10 people who have something to

say about this case, Mr. Chairman, who can clear up this case

if ways can be found to take their testimony. The Premier has a

duty to do that.

Instead he sits there with a majority and stone-walls any

attempt by this House to roll over some of those rocks and let

the sun shine in.

I honestly think, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier regrets

this. I think he would dearly love to have it over. I say to

him once again that he has before him the means to have it

over, to appoint under the Public Inquiries Act , which

is expressly designed for cases like this kind, an impartial

judicial inquiry that will take it out of this House and allow

the House to get on with the business of the people in a way

that cannot be done until this question of the word and good

name of the Premier is resolved.

MR. CHABOT: Earlier in the day I suggested support for the

Leader of the Opposition regarding a public inquiry in this

matter. It was done in good faith in the hope that it would

clear up this matter and remove the cloud from the position of

the Premier of this province.

However, certain developments have taken place since then. I

have listened to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), and he spoke as an authority. In

fact, he told us while speaking that he had substantially more

courtroom experience than any of the other lawyers in this

chamber — more courtroom experience than the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

Well, I have to respect that kind of ability and that type

of experience and that kind of knowledge expressed by the

Minister. In so doing, the Minister suggested that a public

inquiry, a judicial inquiry, was not the way to resolve this

dispute. He suggested that it must be done within the confines

of these four walls.

Well, I'll support that too. What is wrong then? And I want

to thank you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, for the

suggestion, and I will support the suggestion, you have put

forward that this issue be resolved within the confines of

these four walls.

Now there happens to be a little bar down at that end of the chamber

for the purpose of calling witnesses to bring in testimony to make

certain statements. They are under oath when they are behind that bar.

What is wrong, as the Minister suggested, in using the Members of this

assembly as a jury of 53 where we can question people as to the

veracity of certain statements? There should be nothing wrong with

that. It was suggested by the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) — and the Premier as well made a similar

suggestion yesterday — that this matter can be resolved in this

assembly by calling witnesses before the bar of this House. The Leader

of the Opposition also.

There is growing support for this kind of an approach, and I

want to thank the Minister for bringing it forward again today,

because he recognizes that there is a need to clear up the

suspicion that hangs not only over the Premier, his office, but

over this assembly as well.

I would like to ask the Premier if he is willing at this

time to call witnesses before the bar of this chamber to remove

the kind of conflict that exists.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's interesting indeed that the Member for

North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said that I should read

the Public Inquiries Act . I've done several inquiries

under the Public Inquiries Act . And I thought maybe all

these years I had misread the section, but I didn't, Mr.

Chairman. A public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act

is strictly to enter into an inquiry of the conduct of

people outside of this House, not within it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Read the

section and how it's been

interpreted by the courts for many, many years, Mr. Member. A

public inquiry is only an inquiry into allegations of bribery

and so on in terms of public officials.... Read

section 3 — it

has nothing to do with the conduct of Members of this

House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Member is bolting for the door, Mr.

Chairman — sit down. Get your pen out, and I'll give you some

citations. You can read these cases which say that

section 3

cannot be interpreted as meaning the conduct of anyone in this

House. As far as calling Members before the bar, that's only

when there's contempt of this House, Mr. Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot). When there's a dispute in this House and

someone outside it, you can't call Members before the bar for

that purpose whatsoever.

Interjection.

[ Page 935 ]

MR. GARDOM: I just want to refer to this one specific

question raised by the Hon. Minister. He invited the answer,

Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). Is there anything

wrong with that? Certainly not.

Now, what the Hon. Minister did not read to you good

following people over there is this. It reads this way:

"Commissions of Inquiry.

"Whenever the Lieutenant-Governor in Council deems it

expedient to cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any

matter relating to the election of any member of the

Legislative Assembly, past or present...."

Now, Mr. Attorney-General, you have a caucus

meeting with

your Minister over there.

"...or into and concerning any matter connected with

the

good government of the Province, or the conduct of any part of

the public business thereof...."

Now, surely to goodness the request for this inquiry is into

the conduct of this public business. That's the very reason for

it. And it continues. Why did you neglect to read this?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: That is absolute utter nonsense, and the

Attorney-General knows it. Did you read this?

"...or obtaining influence" — this charge is being

made

in the Legislature — "and support for franchises, charters, or

any other rights or privileges, from the Legislature or

Government of the Province by any person...."

That's Mr. Kovachich —

chapter and verse. That's

why we're

calling for a public inquiry.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to preface my

remarks today by quoting from a great Canadian parliamentarian,

the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker. He was speaking in 1949, well

before he took office, well before he achieved the eminence of

which he now has and, I think, justly deserves. He said on

October 27, 1949, in Toronto:

"If parliament is to be preserved as a living

institution,

His Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its

functions. When it properly discharges them, the preservation

of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that

freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and

maintains the rights of minorities against majorities."

— whether they be small people, Mr. Speaker, if I can depart

from the text of Mr. Diefenbaker — small egg producers living

in Duncan — or whether it be others who find themselves against

the majority that we see here. But back to my text:

"It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust

invasions

by the cabinet of the rights of people.

"It should supervise expenditures and prevent

overexpenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful

expenditures or worse.

"It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks

questions

and elicits information; it arouses, educates, and moulds

public opinion by voice and vote.

"It must scrutinize every act of government and, in

doing so,

prevents the shortcut through democratic procedures that

governments like to make.

"The absence of a strong opposition means a one-party

state,

and a one-party state means an all-powerful cabinet."

That, I think, is a correct, accurate description of the

role of the opposition. I feel that in this instance we are

protecting the good name of little people — the people on the

egg board, not major producers, but the people who had the

courage to go out and swear affidavits as to what they felt was

true, even though it meant going against the opinion of the

cabinet and the Premier of the Province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman we have been told that the issue here is a

question of good memory, and that no purpose would be served by

going to an inquiry, where it would simply be a question of

memory, memory, memory. I quote on page 510 of Hansard

of this year the effort I made when the first Brunsdon

affidavit was public, when I asked the Premier whether he stood

by his statement to the House.

"MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Further supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. In

the light of a statement sworn by affidavit by W.H.L. Brunsdon,

and contained in this morning's paper, may I ask the Premier

whether he stands by his statement to the House today?"

Hon. David Barrett, after some intervention from the Speaker

of the House.... I will read it if you wish, but otherwise

I will go down to the reply.

"HON. MR. BARRETT: I wish to answer the question. The

Member

refers to an affidavit of which I do not have a copy. But I

read the copy in this morning's paper, and after every

section

in the affidavit, it claims to have said that such and such was

said, or words to that effect. Now, I cannot be responsible for

what someone's opinion is of what was said or words to that

effect.

"I have conversations with many people. But I recall

distinctly in this issue, which is a very emotional one, that I

made no order, or did not order any solution."

He remembered at that time. He distinctly remembered at that

time, and Brunsdon distinctly remembered. Memory lapses came

from the Minister

[ Page 936 ]

of Agriculture and others. But to suggest that

we're in some

problem here because of memory failures is, I think,

incorrect.

The issue is not simply one of a good memory, and perhaps

before....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Straight politics. You've been on the air

already telling what you're going to do today. We know — Act

III....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's a lot of noise, and I'd like to

comment on a few remarks made earlier by the Premier, and made

by him just now.

Mr. Chairman, I take this whole debate as one of great

seriousness. I am willing to stake my seat on its outcome. I

have said publicly that if Brunsdon's affidavit is

substantially incorrect and shown to be so by an independent

inquiry, I resign my seat. I take it seriously...

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...a lot more seriously than you do,

ma'am. I take it seriously for this reason: the issue of truth

in government is something which cannot be concealed either

here or in the United States or elsewhere where the problem

occurs.

I regard this as an extremely important issue. I regard this

as something which goes to the very heart of what we're trying

to do for the people of British Columbia.

It really hurts, Mr. Chairman, to make statements in this

House which I know to be contrary to the rules. It really hurts

a man to do that. I say this to you to indicate to you that

this is something that I regard as extremely important, to

reiterate that the issue does not go away. I deny completely

the suggestion put forward this morning that this is something

which is simply a cheap, political trick. If it's a cheap,

political trick, I don't stake my reputation and my seat on it —

something which, I would suggest, should be noted.

It was stated earlier this morning, Mr. Chairman, that this would

likely reoccur some other time in the tenure of the Premier's time in

office. Well, I would suggest to him that we are not dealing with

something which occurs frequently. I would suggest to him that this is

a first time, as I understand it, that this has ever occurred in

British Columbia's parliamentary history. I would suggest to him that

it occurs rarely in other jurisdictions, and offhand I know of none

where a situation like this has arisen. It is not something that can be

pooh-poohed, cheapened, indeed, by comments such as we've heard earlier

today and the catcalls we've had from the backbench. It's an issue that

is clear and simple; it is the issue of truth in government.

It's fine to make speeches as the Attorney-General made

that, "Let's get back to business; we want to get on with

running the province." Sure, those speeches are made here and

they're made elsewhere. They're made, of course, mostly in the

United States by Richard Nixon, who would also like to ignore a

question of truth in government.

The issue here that we have is similar in this respect: it's

similar in the question of honesty and integrity of government.

Now let's get to the issue of Kovachich. There were questions

raised in the affidavit, and I know you'll tell me I'm out of

order if I again read the sections of that affidavit, Mr.

Chairman.

But I'd like to quote from Mr. Kovachich himself, quotes

which to the best of my knowledge — and I have been sitting

here through a good part of this debate — quotes which have

riot yet been read into the record. I'm quoting The

Province newspaper of February 21, the very first story

that came out before the affidavits came out, before anything

of that nature came forward to us, before indeed I asked any

questions — days before I asked any questions of the Premier in

the Legislature on this issue.

I quote from the article; it's page 15, The Province:

"When contacted Wednesday Kovachich was asked if

Barrett had

arranged the out-of-court settlement. He replied, 'Yes, that's

right.' "

When asked whether the Premier had arranged the

out-of-court

settlement, the man in question, who benefited to the tune of

$13,800, said, "Yes, that's right." The Premier arranged

it.

Now Kovachich denied that he had asked his MLA for any

preferential treatment regarding his fight with the egg

board:

"They had promised us support; and when they got

elected, I

got in touch with Alf and told him, 'You had better start

living up to your promises.' "

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, Alf, tell us about that, Alf. Tell us

about those promises, Alf.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What promises were made? What

consideration was given for those promises?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Liberals never keep

their promises.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What promises, he asks. Well, that is the

question I'm asking, the question that the people of the province are

asking. What promises were made? What consideration was given for those

promises? We know there's been a $13,800 consideration given to

Kovachich. We know he's had

[ Page 937 ]

his assessments reduced by that amount, even

though, as my

hon. friend from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) pointed

out so well, he has substantially increased his production over

the years since he got in business.

Now why is it that Kovachich himself admits that the Premier

was the one who arranged the reduction, and why is it that he

says — and I'll quote him exactly: "I got in touch with Alf and

told him, 'Look, you had better start living up to your

promises'"? That's why that meeting took place on October 26

of that year during the mini-session that we had that fall,

very soon after the government took office.

Well, the Kovachich affair is central to the issue of truth.

Kovachich himself, speaking not on affidavit, denies the

Premier's statement. He, the man who benefits to the tune of

$13,800, knows where he got that benefit from — from the

Premier and his friend Alf.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We can bring Kovachich before an

independent inquiry and settle this matter once and for all,

Mr. Member for Shuswap, if you'd like to instruct the Premier

to do so, as you've instructed him previously on other

things.

We have the question of other producers. I mentioned this

yesterday, and my hon. friend from North Vancouver mentioned it

again earlier this morning: why should other producers, other

members of the Egg Marketing Board, be forced to pay the amount

of money that Kovachich did not pay to the board? Why should

they be forced?

That was raised by the Hon. Second Member for Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom). He said, "What happens if a member of the Egg

Marketing Board decides he doesn't want to pay, and goes to

court?" For 18 months he's been hearing of meetings of the Egg

Marketing Board and meetings of the producers. "I'm sorry we

can't tell you about Kovachich; that's a political affair."

What happens if they're so unhappy with that that they now

say: "Well, let's not pay into the marketing board; let's leave

our funds in trust or outside it"? What happens if there is

then a court case on the validity or otherwise of the marketing

board?

I'm not a lawyer, despite claims of others in this House. I

happen to have a law degree, and I leave questions of law to my

hon. friend from West Vancouver and my friend from Point Grey.

The issue, though, is pretty clear: has the government, by

political interference, done the very thing which the Minister

of Agriculture constantly denied they intended to do and,

indeed, constantly suggested that they had to guard themselves

doing — that is, weakening the board itself?

The issue of this question of payment by other producers is

of interest because, of course, only 89 per cent of producers

voted to join the scheme. The other 11 per cent preferred

private dealing, and they presumably will take advantage of

this opportunity provided by the Premier and the Minister of

Agriculture to not pay their levies, in the same manner that

Kovachich did not pay his levy in the hopes that perhaps if

they have a good friend by the name of Alf, they can somehow

get the same consideration.

It's a pretty important issue. The issue has come up and

been debated, and it's only being raised because the government

has raised it so often, Mr. Chairman: the government has

consistently said that the Garrish report and other information

indicates that there should be changes to the Egg Marketing

Board. Yet they have consistently not made those changes,

despite the fact the Garrish report is just as many months old

as are the affidavits.

They have consistently not made the changes during the

sessions of this Legislature or indeed by order-in-council

outside of this Legislature. To suggest that the meeting took

place on October 26, 1972, for the purpose of considering

changes to the Egg Marketing Board strains our credulity, Mr.

Chairman, because they've done nothing since then to make the

changes that the Garrish report talked about or all those

changes that they — I include all Members that spoke on this on

the government side — that they thought are so pressing and

necessary. No changes in 18 months.

That meeting back on October 26 was clearly for some other

purpose. Until I got ruled out of order yesterday when I got

to, I believe, paragraph 12, I didn't mention anything but the

Kovachich case when I read out that affidavit. That was the

true reason for the meeting; that was the true reason for that

calling into the office of the Premier of the members of the

Egg Marketing Board.

Why? Well, according to Sy Kovachich himself, it was so the

Premier himself could get Kovachich's case straightened out to

his satisfaction, and his good friend Alf was going to produce

the goods on that.

So why has the egg board not been altered? If we are to

believe any of the government's arguments, they're going to

have to give an explanation for that.

We then go into the question: did the Premier promise and

did he keep that promise to deny every word of that meeting

inside that office if anybody else spoke about it? Apparently

he kept that promise, and apparently that's why we're in the

mess we're in now.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a word or two about some of

the defences, if you can call them that, that have been put

forward by cabinet Ministers. The most sensible one was the

Minister of Agriculture, who pleaded amnesia. He couldn't

remember what

[ Page 938 ]

happened. He admitted the egg board people probably

had

better memories of what happened than he had. He suggested that

even the Premier might have a better memory. But he, poor

fellow, suffers from amnesia and couldn't remember a thing.

His memory improved, but he was very careful never to get

out on a limb and support the Premier in his statements that

the Premier made in this House. And a search of the record will

show that. He's even been away through all these days of the

Premier's estimates when they knew, he knew and the Premier

knew that this subject had to recur.

There's the argument put forward by the Hon.

Attorney-General, the John Mitchell–style arguments, but he

made a mistake that John Mitchell didn't make. Oh, I shouldn't

say that; I should say that John Mitchell made a mistake that

our good Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia

didn't make. He got up and he made a great defence, he thought.

He flailed away at the opposition. But then he said that he

hadn't read the affidavits carefully.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I said I hadn't read them in the sense —

and I mean this — in the sense of getting them from the Clerk's

office — the original affidavits. I've read them over coffee at

the breakfast table subject to interruptions which happen at a

breakfast table. I've listened to them ad nauseum being recited

in this House. And I know them as well as anybody.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's interesting because now we have

the Attorney-General.... And I appreciate the correction of my

understanding of what he said. I had thought that he was

leaving himself a little opening about as large as a barn door

to escape if anything went wrong on this, to say he made the

mistake because he hadn't read them carefully.

But no, he has read them carefully and, of course, if the

issue blows up, he, as Attorney-General, the chief law office

to the Crown, will have to take some responsibility as well — not like

our friend the Minister of Agriculture, who won't have

to because of his inability to remember; not like the Minister

of Highways, who talked on a totally separate subject entirely;

not perhaps like the Minister of Labour, who again did not

state that he thought that the Premier had been accurate. He

just talked on yet another subject of what would happen to him

in a hypothetical case.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) got up and made some statements

about the Public Inquiries Act . They've been denied by lawyers

on this

side, but there's a pretty easy way to find out whether or not that Act

would be applicable and that is to try using it.

Why not? The Ministers indeed have not supported the Premier,

and it's been intriguing to watch, for us on this side of the

House. They suspect something might happen and if anything

happens — for instance, what happens if an egg producer sues

the board, or vice versa over non-payment? Won't the whole

Kovachich case come into court under those circumstances? Will

it, or won't it?

Perhaps it will, and perhaps under those circumstances once

again the accuracy and veracity of the Premier will be called

into question. But all those Ministers who have spoken in this

debate, they've got their bolt holes, they've got their escape

routes, except the Attorney-General, and I admire his courage

today as the only Minister who is willing to tie himself to the

truth or otherwise of the Premier's statements.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He still has doubts.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He said he has doubts? Oh! Just a minute

now, has he still got doubts, or has he really unequivocally

supported the position of the Premier...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not even the Minister of Agriculture has

done that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Case dismissed! (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, there's another issue as well, Mr.

Chairman, and it's one which I think should be commented

upon at this time. We know full well, all of us here I'm sure,

at least all of us in the opposition, that political parties

can make mistakes because individuals within them make

mistakes. Our party can admit this. I'm sure the Social Credit

and the memory of the Sommers case can admit that Members of

their party also made mistakes. The Conservatives are probably

in the same position. But the NDP has always adopted a somewhat

superior attitude. Other parties make mistakes but their people

are somewhat better.

One man supports that statement. What happens, Mr. Chairman,

and through you to the Members of the NDP, what happens to the

credibility of a party when their members, in a situation such

as this, go ahead and support one of their number in refusing

an investigation which would or could clear his name?

[ Page 939 ]

What happens to the credibility of the NDP? What about the

Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) whose husband was

such a fine outstanding politician in that party? I'm sure I

admire him as much as anybody else in this House.

Does it not leave a funny taste that the party, which has

set itself up because of people like that, does it not leave a

funny taste that they don't take steps to clear their names?

Why is that? It's an interesting question.

I've sat on the backbench of a government, and I've seen

Ministers worked over by Members of the opposition, and I

remember the caucus meetings afterwards and saying,"Well, what

is the situation here?" Why is it now with a party which has

always attempted to put principle very highly — and I admire

their members for that who've always struggled often against

great odds to put forward views which they held and held

sincerely — why is it that now in power this corruption of

power talked about by Lord Acton seems to have set in?

How about the Members who are ministers of the cloth? How do

they enjoy — and one of them at least comes into this chamber

frequently in clerical garb — how does he enjoy the prospect of

going back to his riding and saying: "Yes, I know that a simple

inquiry could have cleared the name of the Premier, but we

decided not to take it." Knowing full well that the person

there speaking to him in his riding will draw the conclusion

"They didn't take it because they didn't want to know the

results of it."

Mr. Chairman, we can't carry on forever arguing the issue of

whether or not the Premier has or has not told the truth in

this case; that's obvious. Ultimately the debate must come to

an end. But what will not come to an end is this. We have a

situation where the opportunity has been presented to the

Minister, the Premier of the Province, and the Minister of

Agriculture and the Attorney-General to clear their names and

the reputation of their party.

They can do that by the simple expedient of a public inquiry,

and we have tried, tried, tried to get a public inquiry ever

since February 24 when I first spoke on this. We've tried for a

public inquiry to find out, to take this matter out of

politics. I find it extremely distasteful that I'm placed in

this position that I am today, and have been yesterday and the

day before, and the day after that. I find it distasteful.

We have tried time after time for a public inquiry because

that's the way we think we can get this matter resolved in the

most expeditious fashion without the hurly-burly of political

debate.

To accuse us of trying to use this for political purposes is

a thoroughly unfair charge. We have consistently, perhaps 20

times in this House, called for that public inquiry. We

initiated the concept, and we're delighted that the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Member for Saanich and

the Islands (Mr. Curtis) today came out so forcibly in favour of

our views.

We've tried and tried and tried, because this is not simply

a case of two minor egg producers tucked away somewhere making

affidavits which may or may not be true. This is a case where

the opposition, representing the majority of the people in this

province who voted in the last provincial election, and

understanding the duties put upon them by their role as

opposition Members — which I outlined with my quote from John

Diefenbaker — it is us demanding the inquiry. It is the people

of British Columbia demanding an inquiry.

We think an inquiry is necessary because whatever our

political persuasion, he is our Premier, Mr. Chairman, and our

Premier's word should not be cast in the light of doubt that it

is.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I just can't understand the NDP

backbenchers and their attitude to this, because I believe they

are destroying the credibility of their party by their

acquiescence to the actions of the cabinet, by their

determination to follow the cabinet come hell or high water on

this issue and not to allow a public inquiry.

You backbenchers had better think about this because it's

not just a question of your own seats. I'm sure you can get

beyond your own personal views on this. But what does it do to

your party and its credibility and the respect that all of us

in this Legislature and outside have for the Websters and the

Winches of years gone by?

MR. FRASER: They're all one-turn guys. One turn, one turn;

that's all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a situation which I think they

should ponder on and give them the opportunity of expressing

displeasure at the actions of their cabinet, and in particular

their Premier, who in my mind will destroy their party just as

surely as can be with his actions.

I would like to move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, so that all

Members can express their disapproval of the action being taken

without necessarily defeating the Premier. I move that the

salary of the Hon. Premier as provided in vote 2 be reduced by

$1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's an amendment moved to vote 2.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, earlier today we asked the

Premier to call an independent inquiry to clear the air so that

this House could get down to its business. He's chosen not to

take this action. For this reason we must support this motion

and the Social Credit Party will support this amendment to this

motion.

[ Page 940 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I heard a repetition of

allegations,

interpretations, opinions, with the denial that

there's any political motivation by that Member. Mr. Chairman,

I simply don't believe that statement that there is no

political motivation. That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to

my opinion, and I certainly intend to repeat; that's the way I

feel.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Member, the whole matter has

been a contrived, political device. It has been staged. It has

been sent outside to the newspapers and to the media step by

step. All this time, going on unbeknownst behind his own back,

his own party that two days ago shook hands with him in the

House, were knifing him in the back at the same time.

Mr. Chairman, what we're really seeing is a political device

to save his own skin not based on any rational argument in this

House.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's Brutus.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's Cassius, not Brutus. There's

Brutus.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's rather a pathetic thing, that

a Premier of the Province has no better defence for his own

actions, no firmer course of action to deal with specific

charges laid not by Members of this House but by citizens of

British Columbia, than to accuse the leader of the Liberal

Party of cheap, political motivation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, push for recess.

MR. McGEER: The Premier has completely lost his senses, Mr.

Chairman. He is under pressure. We acknowledge that, but we have

given every opportunity to the Premier to relieve that pressure

by following a course of action that he himself has set out for

other Members of this House, similarly charged.

The charge — and we can phrase this in any number of

different ways — let me put it this way: failing to level with

the House and the public of British Columbia. That's what the

charge is. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is one citizen of

British Columbia who believes in his heart that the Premier is

levelling with the House or the people of British Columbia, not

one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Want to bet?

MR. McGEER: The Premier, Mr. Chairman, stands by

himself.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I know that the New Democratic Party will, to a

man, follow the dictates of that famous British parliamentarian,

Benjamin Disraeli, who said, "Damn your principles and stick by your

party."

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what Gordon Gibson said last

night.

MR. McGEER: I suspect there will be 37 of them this

afternoon if the Minister of Agriculture comes in for the

vote.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you stick by your party?

MR. McGEER: I certainly stick by my leader, and I repeat, he

is the only leader in British Columbia today — not the Premier.

The Premier stands by himself, perhaps supported by others for

their own survival, but the Premier's defence — political

motivation, red herrings. Mr. Premier, answer th