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 15, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page 1221 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings Blind Persons' Rights Act (Bill 72). Hon. Ms. Young.

Introduction and first reading — 1221

An Act to Amend the Audit Act (Bill 78). Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 1221

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General

estimates On vote 11.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1221

Mr. Bennett — 1221

Mr. McGeer — 1222

Mr. Gardom — 1222

Mr. McClelland — 1223

Mr. Phillips — 1224

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1225

Mr. Gardom — 1225

Mr. McGeer — 1229

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1231

Mr. McGeer — 1231

Mr. Schroeder — 1231

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1232

Mr. Gardom — 1236

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1237

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1239

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1239

Mr. Gibson — 1242

Mr. D.A. Anderson (amendment) — 1243

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1243

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1244

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1245

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1245

Mr. Gibson — 1245

Mr. McGeer — 1246

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1248

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1249

Hon. Ms. Young — 1249

Mr. Dent — 1250

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1250

Mr. Wallace — 1251

FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it's

a pleasure to draw the attention of the House this morning to a

group of students from the Royal Oak Junior Secondary Grade 10

social studies class. There are 22 of them with us today for

about an hour. They are accompanied by the teacher in charge,

Mr. Don McColl. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave to table a working paper on the community college in

British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT

Hon. Ms. Young presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Blind Persons' Rights

Act .

Bill 72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE AUDIT ACT

On a motion by Mr. McGeer, Bill 78,

An Act to Amend the

Audit Act , introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 11: Minister's office, $79,652.

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

don't want to delay the vote for too much longer but, you know,

if there are things to say, we've got to hold it up for

awhile.

I was a little concerned with the debate about Columbia Cellulose last night.

It's true that it's all in this chamber and it's all privilege — and it should

be privileged in this chamber. But reputations were being kind of maligned with

a bit of gay abandon. And that kind of thing, as I read the House, would continue.

I don't see, as such, irregularities in the trading pattern.

Nevertheless I've looked at sections 23 and 25 of the Act, and

so that we will not continue in a negative, destructive way in

this House, not let this matter consume hours of time, not let

the good business of the people of this province be delayed — and so that nobody shall say that we're not doing our duty — I

have issued an order this morning.

I suppose I should read it into the record, and I hope it

will stop.... I will read the order into the record.

"It is ordered that Bruce Morrison" — I'm summarizing a

little bit; he's a solicitor — "E.F. Smith, C.A., L.G.

Smallicombe — he's a B. Comm. — and A.R. Campbell, all of the

British Columbia Securities Commission, and Inspector R.N.

Mulloch, Sgt. T.J. Hill, Sgt. F.L. Long, Sgt. J. Dunbar, Sgt.

K.E. Salt, Cpl. M. Peters, all of the Royal Canadian Mounted

Police, are hereby appointed pursuant to the provisions of

section 25 of the Securities Act, 1967 to make an

investigation into any matter relating to trading and

securities of Columbia Cellulose Co."

Members shouldn't speculate from that that somebody out

there has been doing something wrong. Right? But some of the

Members last night went beyond that, and I must admit it did

disturb me. The First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), for

example, said definitely that something's wrong — without

anything to go on. That's kind of disturbing, but let's get on,

as I say, with the good business of the people of B.C.

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

through you to the Attorney-General, we in the opposition

welcome this inquiry. And we welcome the Attorney-General

taking this action, although we feel that it may be almost a

year late.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: The takeover of Columbia Cellulose happened

last year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you have any evidence that there was

any wrongdoing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would point out to the Hon. Leader of

the Opposition and to other Members of the House that there has

been an announcement made indicating that an inquiry is taking

place, therefore I feel it pointless to continue the debate we

were debating last night — unless for a brief statement

[ Page 1222 ]

only.

MR. BENNETT: I must ask further for some clarification of

the inquiry from the Attorney-General as to whether formal

sittings will be held and how ordinary citizens may make

submissions to this inquiry — if anyone has anything they wish

to submit to it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, submit anything to Bill

Irwin, by all means.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you very much.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I want

to thank the Attorney-General for initiating an investigation.

I think it's entirely appropriate and this is the kind of

prompt action on the part of government that is very welcome

indeed. We wish it were a consistent pattern, but we can

certainly take satisfaction in the moves the government is

prepared to make.

I'd like if I may to raise another matter with the

Attorney-General that I would hope he would look into. It's the

Attorney-General's responsibility to supervise the Companies

Act and the Societies Act . There's one society that

I think should be looked at by the Attorney-General's

Department, because it's a society that is supported in

substantial measure by the provincial government.

I refer to the X-Kalay Foundation, which last submitted an

annual report on June 28, 1971. It received something like

$11,000 a month from the provincial government, and, as I

understand it, has been in a considerable amount of financial

difficulty.

I have a letter from Price-Waterhouse, who at one time

looked into the financial affairs. This is dated July 12, 1972,

saying to the directors:

"We enclose estimated statement of the financial position of the society as of May 31, 1972.

Although we have assisted in the preparation of this statement,

which is largely based on information supplied by the

directors, it has not been audited and we do not express an

opinion on it, although we trust that it may be useful for

purposes of discussion at tomorrow afternoon's meeting."

Here's a society that is operating with all the privileges of the Societies

Act : it's not submitting an annual report as required; it's financial affairs

have been looked at by auditors who've been extremely cautious about the statements

they've made; it's receiving a very substantial grant from the provincial government.

And it's my understanding that this foundation has since purchased a resort

on Saltspring Island. I don't know where the money came from, whose money it

was, but if this operation is to receive financial support from the provincial

government, you better be on top of it, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll look at it, and I'd like to hear

what you've got to say.

MR. McGEER: Well, you've heard it. Today I don't want to

discuss a bill before the Legislature, but it's the amendments

of the Audit Act that would see that every organization,

every Crown corporation that gets money from the provincial

government or handles the people's money, is appropriately

audited so that the public knows the same standards are being

applied to those Crown corporations that apply to government

expenditures.

I'm not suggesting that all societies should have that kind

of audit; obviously it's inappropriate. But all societies that

get substantial financial support from this provincial

government....

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

this is the substance of the point of the bill that was

introduced this morning by the Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No it isn't. My bill had nothing to say about

societies. Nothing at all. I'm merely expressing an opinion,

Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General that any society which

receives substantial grants from the provincial government

should be given strict supervision by his department.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: By Human Resources in this case.

MR. McGEER: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman, you don't put strict

financial operations in the hands of that Minister. You don't.

You put it in the hands of careful financial auditors.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'm the last one.

MR. McGEER: And that doesn't come under your department, Mr.

Attorney-General; it comes under the Premier and Minister of

Finance. That's not a legal obligation on the part of that

Minister, any more than it's a legal obligation on the part of

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). The legal

obligation is on your part. This society, which is receiving

money from the provincial government, is not complying with the

Acts that you supervise, and I'd like an investigation.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): Apropos of the

remarks of the first Member for Vancouver-Point Grey, Mr.

Chairman, I have here from the Registrar of Companies, under

cover of March 8, 1974, the last annual report files for

X-Kalay Foundation Society and it bears the date

[ Page 1223 ]

June 28, 1971. I refer to the Hon. Attorney-General to

Section 31 of the Societies Act :

"Every society shall hold an annual general meeting and within 14 days thereafter, file with the

registrar (referring to the Registrar of Companies) a statement

in the form of a balance sheet containing general particulars

of its liabilities and assets, and a statement of its income

and expenditures audited and signed by the auditor of the

society, or if there's no auditor, by two directors."

Section 57 refers to penalties, and

Section 56 of the

Societies Act refers to offences.

This society is clearly in default of the Societies

Act and it's subject to penalty and it's subject to being

charged. Why has an annual report not been filed? Why has your

department not insisted that one be filed? I hear the Member

for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) state that moneys go into

this society annually, is that right? How much? Do you have the

exact figure?

MR. McGEER: About $11,000.

MR. GARDOM: About $11,000 a month has gone into this society

since 1971, and you don't see that it follows the laws

of the Province of British Columbia? What's going on

over there?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

thank the government for initiating the inquiry that they've

announced this morning. It's overdue, but it's a good move and

certainly welcome by the opposition.

I would like the Attorney-General to consider at the same

time his position with regard to the business of the agreement

which was reached with the Premier and Mr. Sy Kovachich of

Prince George, because the evidence delivered by the government

itself last night shows that there's something very wrong here

as well, and certainly deserves the interest and the attention

of the Attorney-General.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) strongly urged

the Attorney-General to initiate a similar kind of inquiry into

this situation and we repeat that plea.

I'd also like the Attorney-General to look into the whole

problem of cabinet and caucus leaks on the part of the NDP

because we're seeing too many confidential reports.... In the

case of the egg marketing situation, again confidential reports

were leaked to the press. We've seen confidential reports

leaked from the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce's (Hon. Mr. Lauk'

s) department.

AN HON. MEMBER: That wasn't leaked, that was taken.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh no. Now who's making accusations, Mr.

Chairman? Now who's making accusations with nothing to back

them up?

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, even the NDP caucus....

Interjection.

HON. MR. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

I just know it was stolen, don't get sensitive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, may I continue?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt

the person who has the floor. Would the Hon. Member continue

please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is strong evidence that

the provisions of the Mineral Act were leaked to people

outside of this country in advance of that legislation being

introduced. The chairman of the NDP caucus said in a public

meeting that there have been leaks in the party caucus and that

the government would take some moves to seal those leaks.

There have been too many occasions of this government showing

its sloppy administration.

Even the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has accused the

government, or at least government Members, of lying; in the

public press has accused the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) and his officials of lying. Mr. Chairman, it's time

that the Attorney-General decided to take the same kind of

prompt action in regard to those questions as well, because the

people of British Columbia are demanding that something be

done. We don't want to see this government shying away from

accountability.

The Attorney-General still hasn't answered many of our

questions, but particularly in regard to the actions which have

been taken with regard to leaks. I want to remind the

Attorney-General, and I'm not going to reflect on the order

that he gave me today, but I just want to remind him that on

March 26, several days before trading was suspended, I asked a

question in this House about the purchase of Columbia

Cellulose, and that was several days before the trading was

suspended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I believe that this matter's already

been disposed of, and I would hope that we would not enter the

debate again.

[ Page 1224 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, the matter hasn't been disposed of,

Mr. Chairman, and I'm suggesting that there are some items that

should be considered when the inquiry is going on, and that's

one of them. I'm only reflecting on that simple fact that I

knew something was happening; the Member for Rossland-Trail

(Mr. D'Arcy) knew that something was happening. How many other

people in British Columbia knew that something was

happening?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is, Hon. Member, that

the opposition did propose a remedy which was followed by the

Attorney-General, and I would think that this would be

sufficient. Otherwise I can't see any point in further debating

this matter at this time until that investigation is completed.

Therefore, I would rule further discussion out of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The opposition has

also on many occasions warned the government about the

possibility of the dangers inherent in the Premier becoming a

stockbroker. We're seeing, Mr. Chairman, many of those dangers

coming true now.

All I am saying is that the Attorney-General should make it

clear that we don't operate this government like some huge crap

game with the taxpayers' money being risked at every roll. Crap

game!

Once again I'd like to welcome that probe and again, as

rationally as possible, plead with the Attorney-General to

initiate the same kind of private, public and non-political

inquiry into the whole mess that the Premier has got the people

of British Columbia into with regard to the Egg Marketing

Board, the Broiler Marketing Board and the agreement, which has

now been made public that was NDP supporter in Prince George.

It's time that the Attorney-General acted just as quickly on

that matter, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I certainly want to

add my words of thanks to the government, particularly the

Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, for ordering this

inquiry, because I think the Attorney-General realizes, after

it being hammered into him by the opposition, the official

opposition, that the whole matter has to be cleared up.

I still would like to ask the Attorney-General once again

that when this investigation is completed — and I hope it is

proceeded with forthwith — that he studies the results of it,

sees what could have happened, and if indeed nothing happened

....

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Go back to selling your used cars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sure that the Hon.

Attorney-General appreciates your appreciation, but I would ask

again that you keep your remarks brief in regard to this

issue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am merely repeating my request

that he bring in rules and regulations or indeed legislation to

see that this type of thing, this type of situation, cannot

happen in British Columbia again in the future. That is also

the responsibility of the Attorney-General.

We are discussing the estimates of the Attorney-General. The

total of his estimated department expenditures is some

$70,062,313, up from $44,127,167 last year. I would like the

Attorney-General, if he will, to....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's not in order. He's discussing my

department. (Laughter.) Go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would rule that the Hon. Member is in

order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think we have to add to that a vote of his

of last year, a sum of $3,501,713, which was paid to the firm

of Ladner, Downes and Company, and I presume this had to be for

legal advice. That is a law firm in Vancouver, is it not? I

would like the Attorney-General to explain to me, Mr. Chairman.... That's $3.5 million that was paid out to a law firm in

Vancouver out of the public accounts. What's that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: $3.5 million in one year?

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, it astounded me too. Really.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It sure astounds me, too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe it was money transferred to them for

purchase of property or something. I don't know. I'm asking

you, Mr. Attorney-General. If you refer to page E188 in the public accounts for the year ended

March 31, 1973, expenditures for the year 1972-73, there is a.... It really took my breath away, Mr. Chairman.

Now, as I say, this could be, Mr. Attorney-General, for

trust moneys paid into this law firm for purchases of something

else. It could have been for the purchase of shares. I don't

know. It seems to me like a tremendous amount of money to be

paid for legal advice when we are paying you, Mr.

[ Page 1225 ]

Attorney-General, a whole bunch of money besides. Maybe the

Attorney-General would give me an answer.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, will you stop that Minister over

there from lecturing me?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, we'll get the

answer. If it's not before the Public Accounts Committee, we'll

provide the answer. It could not be fees because the figure

would be just way out of line. It is impossible. I suppose it

is some purchase or other, but I think it is before the Public

Accounts Committee. If not, and you don't receive any

satisfaction, will you put it on the order paper — say, sometime

in April or even earlier? We'll get you the answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, how about May?

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening there was

introduced into the records of the House excerpts read from a

letter from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. D. Stupich) to

Mr. Janzen, dated August 14, 1973. I'm not sure as to whether

or not it was filed. I would ask leave to file it if it has not

been filed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You may not file in committee. You

would have to file when we are meeting in the House.

MR. GARDOM: We can get to that a little later today. Has it

been filed or not?... tabled, I should say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not to my knowledge.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, well then, it certainly should be.

Emanating from that, Mr. Chairman, there certainly has been

more than ever a dramatic need for a public inquiry under the

provisions of the Public Inquiries Act of this

province. I would like to establish the reasons once again for

the request, and this is very germane to the vote of the

Attorney-General because of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would point out that this request has

been made repeatedly. Therefore, I would ask, if he provides

further information, that it would be kept as brief as

possible.

MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry. It is very difficult to hear you with

so much interjection from all sides of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would just repeat the point that this

request to the Attorney-General has been made repeatedly.

Therefore, I would ask that he keep the comments brief.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, indeed. I shall do that, Mr. Chairman. We

seem to start off with this kind of a situation that Sy knows

Alf and Alf knows Dave, and Dave makes an agreement with Sy,

which Dave says he doesn't make. Now that is sort of the first

premise and I think perhaps that we should look at the money

involved. We find a $21,000 lawful levy being reduced to $7,500

and we do not find the Attorney-General indicating to this

Legislature if that was a lawful reduction.

Secondly, we find from this letter this statement:

"...as I reread the Kovachich agreement as made between

the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others." Now

that is very, very significant because if we take another look

back at the affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon, paragraph 10, he

says:

"THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that he intended

to present the draft agreement to Mr. Kovachich on the day

following the said meeting."

So indeed we find now, from the letter which was apparently

released to the press last night — by the Minister of

Agriculture — by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall),

corroborative evidence of the fact that there was an agreement

made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of

others, which puts the Premier in a very untenable position

concerning his statements and earlier statements to this

House.

We have to look at the dollar ramifications of it. As I say,

we find $21,000 being diminished down to $7,500 and according

to the way I'm reading this letter of August 14, 1973, we find

that Mr. Kovachich has his permit increased to 200 cases.

Well, if memory serves, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kovachich had, I

believe, 80 cases; so he has an increase of 120, at $300 per

case, or he has got $36,000 more of quota as a result of an

agreement with the Premier of the Province of British Columbia,

according to the letter filed by the Minister of

Agriculture.

If that's not need for a public inquiry, what is — when the

Premier denies the agreement? What indeed is? Further, this

letter is dated August 14, 1973. It's not a question of Mr.

Kovachich's putting up $36,000. He can borrow it from the

government at 6 per cent. What was the prime bank rate then — 9

per cent? Okay. And where did the money come from? It seems to

have come, according to the second page of the letter, by

special warrant. Outside of the vote of this Legislature.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You're misleading the whole

House.

[ Page 1226 ]

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

Shuswap to stand in his place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): He's not going to make a

speech on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member for

Shuswap repeat the remark, please? If he indicated to the House

that an Hon. Member was misleading the House, I would ask him

to withdraw that imputation.

MR. LEWIS: Yes, I'll tell you how he mislead the House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm asking the Hon. Member to withdraw

the remark that an Hon. Member was misleading the House.

MR. LEWIS: Well, I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman, but it is

not telling the whole story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tell the rest of it. Tell it all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We are not on the Minister of

Agriculture's estimates, and I would ask the same thing of the

Member for Shuswap, if he would keep his remarks brief.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: If he had read the rest of the letter, he would

have read the fact that that was made available for moving

quotas to all of the Interior, not just to Mr. Kovachich.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Langley on

a point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Hon. Member was asked to withdraw a

statement which he made in the House. But he didn't have the

floor in the House, the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) had the floor. All he was asked to do was get up

and withdraw, and he doesn't have the right to take

part in the

debate at this time.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would accept the withdrawal

from the Hon. Member....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! A point of order. The Hon. Minister of Highways on a point of order.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I'm speaking on the

point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Langley. I'm sure

that if there's a point of order to be raised, the Liberal

party can defend themselves. They don't need that help, do

they, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order made by the

Hon. Member for Langley is well taken. I have accepted the

withdrawal of the Member for Shuswap, and I would recognize

again the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: With so many points of order it is difficult to

get the point across here, by golly! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would also point out to the

Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey that he is opening up an

issue again and re-canvassing an issue which was dealt with at

length previously.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He was cut off by the

bell.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! And when he's making his request to the

Attorney-General, and he's raising new information, that he

deal with it briefly, as I asked.

MR. GARDOM: In the six years that I have been a Member, this

is the first time I have ever been accused of misleading the

House. The Hon. Member suggests that I am misleading the House

because I've not read the whole letter, so Mr. Chairman, I

shall read the whole letter — which I am more than delighted to

do.

More than likely you would have ruled me out of order if I

had attempted to do that.

I'll start at the beginning.... "For the information of

Mr. Lewis, MLA," the Member for Shuswap who is just

accusing me of misleading. Then we find the seal: Minister of

Agriculture, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, Aug. 14,

1973:

"Mr. W. Janzen, Chairman, B.C. Egg Marketing Board, P.O. 310, Abbotsford, B.C.

"Dear Mr. Janzen.

"In anticipation of your board meeting

scheduled for Thursday, August 16, I felt I should clarify my position with

respect to arranging for additional egg production in the Interior and Vancouver

Island areas of the province,

"We have previously agreed that

the government would finance the purchase of

[ Page

1227 ]

quota in the Lower Fraser Valley at the rate of $300 per case,

and that this quota would be used to issue special permits, as recommended by

a producer committee. It is my understanding that this committee has made recommendations

to the board, and I would appreciate it if these recommendations could be approved

promptly. It is my understanding also that the effective date of these special

permits will be June 1, 1973."

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, indeed. Retroactive — as my colleague from

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) mentions.

"Holders of the special permits will pay interest to the

government at the rate of 6 per cent of $300 per case annually

for a period of five years. These special permits may be

converted to quota at any time, upon payment of $300 per case

up to the end of the fifth year of payment. Subsequent to that

date the price per case of quota shall reduce at the rate of

$30 per year until the cost is reduced to zero. At that time

the government will write off the advance. A further condition

of the special permits is that they will not be separable from

the production units.

"As I re-read the Kovachich agreement as made between the

Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others...."

Is that clear enough to the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis), or would you like me to read that again? "As I re-read

the Kovachich agreement as made between the Premier and Mr.

Kovachich in the presence of others..." Is that clear to

you, Mr. Member?

MR. LEWIS: But there is no agreement; how can you re-read

it?

MR. GARDOM: "...the latter was to have additional ordinary permits

issued so that he would qualify for a total of 200 cases of

production per week."

As I said, it is my understanding that Mr. Kovachich had 80

cases, and this was giving him another 120 to bring him up to

200 cases. So, by multiplying the 120 extra cases, which

surely, Mr. Member, is the result of the agreement as made

between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others.... Your Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is an

honourable man and this is what he says. They are all

honourable men.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Carrying on with the letter, Mr. Chairman — in

fact I'll read this again. I want this paragraph to be in its

totality:

"As I re-read the Kovachich agreement as made between the

Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others, the latter

was to....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We've had that. Why don't you read

something new ?

MR. GARDOM: The Premier has denied it but the Minister of

Agriculture has affirmed it. That's the whole point.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Now that their notes are considered.

(Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: Oh, Mr. Chairman, this gets curiouser and

curiouser and curiouser.

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

brief.

MR. GARDOM: When is an agreement is an agreement is an

agreement?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just take a false premise and go for

five hours.

MR. McGEER: Away you go!

MR. GARDOM: Well, who is false, Mr. Attorney-General? Is it

the Minister of Agriculture or your Premier? — because you've

got to make the choice as the chief law enforcement officer of

the Province of British Columbia, and you have to order a full

public inquiry by an independent commission to get to the very

bottom of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is allowing the Hon.

Member to read this letter because it is new information, but I

would ask him to keep his remarks brief because the whole

subject has been very thoroughly canvassed previous to

this.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it hasn't. I came up with it last

night and I was ruled out by the clock.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, while we were debating the

Attorney-General's estimates last night, two Ministers of the

Crown were releasing the letter to the press, and you're trying

to tell us that it is old material? Even your own Ministers

have introduced new evidence which we must discuss in the

[ Page 1228 ]

Attorney-General's estimates, because they are completely

condemning to the Premier of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point is: the Hon. Members

have requested an inquiry by the Attorney-General, as part of

his administrative responsibility. Any information which is

pertinent to this request we are allowing to be presented.

However, there is no point in discussing the subject at length

again in general terms. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member

to continue.

MR. GARDOM: I rather wish my colleagues would stop having

secret meetings with me in the House. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) state his point of order?

MR. McCLELLAND: My point, Mr. Chairman, is: we had to

canvass another subject over and over and over again and we

finally got an inquiry there. All we're trying to do in this

instance is the same thing. We hope that the Attorney-General

might see the light again and give us an inquiry in this

instance as well, on the basis of new evidence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed with his new

evidence?

MR. GARDOM: The unfortunate conundrum, Mr. Chairman, is the

fact that we have one cabinet Minister affirming, and one

Premier denying. And that is a very unfortunate position to put

all the Members in, including myself and yourself, Mr.

Chairman. That's why I indeed request your indulgence to,

perhaps, carry on with the reading of the letter in its

totality.

"As I re-read the Kovachich agreement as made between the

Premier and Mr. Kovachich, in the presence of others" — who

were they? — "the latter was to have additional ordinary permits

issued so that he would qualify for a total of 200 cases of

production per week. It is my feeling that the board should

recognize this situation by allotting this to Mr.

Kovachich."

That's the end of that paragraph, and the Minister of

Agriculture said that it is his feeling that the board should

recognize this situation by allotting this permit and this 200

cases of production to Mr. Kovachich as a result of the

agreement made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich.

It seems awfully clear to me that there was an agreement

between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich. Would anyone in here be

prepared to put up their hand and say that's not the case? I

don't see one hand. What about the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Lea) who's been making so much noise? Just one hand, who

would say in here that there wasn't an agreement between the

Premier and Mr. Kovachich? Not one single solitary Member of

the government. Not one. One hand — Shuswap. Only Shuswap says

there was no agreement. So you're saying that the Minister of

Agriculture is not telling the truth in this letter. You had

better stand here and explain your actions to the Minister of

Agriculture, Mr. Member. Carrying on with the letter.

"I" referring again to the Minister of Agriculture, since he

signed it:

"I am arranging for the Department of Finance to provide a

special warrant in the amount of $50,000 as initial payment on

the quota that has already been arranged for by the Egg

Marketing Board. Further government advances will be made as my

department recommends."

I'm not suggesting that the $50,000 special warrant was all

for the purposes of Mr. Kovachich, because by virtue of using

the arithmetic that is limited to me, in my understanding of

the matter, $36,000 of the $50,000 was the special warrant for

the special purposes of Mr. Kovachich, by virtue of Mr.

Kovachich having an agreement with the Premier of the Province

of B.C. Pretty nice deal. Carrying on with the quotation, Mr.

Chairman:

"It was my intention not to make funds available for quota

purchase until the board had agreed that B.C. would be a fully

participating member of the national egg agency."

That was the intention of the Minister of Agriculture; it

seems to be a very different intention from that of the

Premier. I wonder why.

"I am not proceeding with the above arrangement to

facilitate settlement of the internal problem relating to

Interior production."

It must read "now," I would assume. Has anybody got a

better copy? I don't wish to be incorrect. I would assume it

would read "now".

"I am now proceeding with the above arrangement to

facilitate settlement of the internal problem relating to

Interior production. Following upon this, it is my intention to

move at the earliest possible date to bring British Columbia

into the national marketing plan.

"Yours very truly,

"David D. Stupich, Minister of Agriculture."

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: This is a revelation, Mr. Chairman. One always

likes to rely in a court of law on the best evidence rule, so I

think it would be most

[ Page 1229 ]

appropriate if the original of the letter was filed by the

government, because it would appear to be in their possession,

or at least the ribbon copy which they would have. Now this is

apart from the very serious and obvious matters that were

raised in here of blatant contradiction between the Premier and

the Minister of Agriculture, upon the very obvious inference

that Mr. Kovachich received special treatment.

There is something else. This letter was revealed yesterday

by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) with or without the knowledge of the Premier —

I don't know. But they made a selective judgment. They felt

that the opposition might be getting hold of the letter, or

receiving general information about it, and they wanted to —

what was their expression? I forget what it was — head it off

at the pass or something like that.

Mr. Chairman, what else is under the rug? Where are the rest

of the letters? Is it an unfair request to make to the Hon.

Attorney-General to file the complete file dealing with Mr.

Kovachich before the Legislature of the Province of British

Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the Hon. Member is

requesting that this correspondence be filed, the proper

procedure would be to put a motion on the order paper.

(Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: That has proven to be not the most effective

process for the opposition, as Mr. Chairman well knows, so I

tend to hope that maybe this quiet little suggestion will find

its way into the ear of the Attorney-General, the Premier, the

Minister of Agriculture, the Provincial Secretary, and all the

Members of the New Democratic Party who like to have the

"Sunshine Law" effected and carried on in the Province of

British Columbia. Let there be some sunshine brought into

this.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a capricious matter. This is a

very serious matter. We've had one inquiry ordered earlier

today as the result of extremely relentless and hard work on

the part of some opposition Members. There's even a more

dramatic need for this because it affects the good order of

government. There is blatant conflict in written form between

the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance.

There's blatant conflict between the sworn testimony of

citizens of this province and the Premier. The Premier's in

conflict with his Minister of Agriculture; the Premier's in

conflict with the citizens of B.C. That is not the way to run

the province. That is not the way to operate or function in a

democratic society.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Liberal leader last night, and the Second

Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) brought forward evidence of the

gravest kind before the Attorney-General. It relates less, Mr. Chairman, to

the dealings behind closed doors with Mr. Kovachich than to the performance

of the Ministers themselves in this House. Mr. Chairman, we questioned the Minister

of Agriculture during his estimates regarding the agreements between Mr. Kovachich

and the government. The Minister of Agriculture told us he couldn't remember

what went on at those meetings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The request has been made, as I

said, repeatedly asking the Attorney-General for an inquiry as

part of his administrative responsibilities. Some further

information was presented why this shouldn't be done. However,

I would state as a ruling of the Chair that we should not

debate the matter here at length again, but rather that if you

have further information to present as to why the

Attorney-General should pursue an inquiry, then you should

state the information; otherwise we should not enter into a

full debate on the whole issue.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, during the whole time in which

this particular letter was being read to the House, the

Attorney-General was absent and didn't have an opportunity to

hear it. Furthermore, the Attorney-General last night was in

the House at the time the Minister of Agriculture and the

Provincial Secretary released a letter to the press. He didn't

have the benefit of direct knowledge of what went on at that

press conference.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated

for a moment, please? I would like to point out to the Hon.

First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that if the

thrust of the debate or the comments of the Hon. Members is to

question the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture, or the

Premier, or any other Member of this House, it can't be done

here. The authority is the 18th edition of May , page 361. I

will just read the

section in question:

"Matters to be dealt with by substantive motions.

"Certain matters cannot be debated, save upon a substantive

motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. Among

these are the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne

or other members of the Royal Family, the Governors-General of

the independent territories, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker,

the Chairman of Ways and Means, Members of either House of

Parliament," et cetera.

It would appear that the direction or the thrust in which

the remarks are proceeding is one questioning the conduct, or

possible conduct, of the Minister of Agriculture or the

Premier.

[ Page 1230 ]

Inasmuch as the request has been made repeatedly by Members

of the opposition asking the Attorney-General to conduct an

inquiry, I don't think the request needs to be repeated again.

New information has been introduced why this request has been

made, and I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to

the administrative responsibility of the Minister whose

estimates we are now considering; otherwise he should put a

substantive motion on the order paper.

MR. McGEER: Precisely, Mr. Chairman. I absolutely agree with

what you said there. Of course, you have brought this matter of

what is on page 361 of the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May in

which he says that you cannot deal with the conduct of the

sovereign, the heirs to the throne, other members of the Royal

Family, the Governors-General of the independent territories,

the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and

Means. Mr. Chairman, I'm not reflecting on any of those; I'm

merely discussing the administrative responsibilities of the

Attorney-General — the ways in which he and only he, can take

initiative in order to correct the situation. Before he

understands what his duties should be, it's necessary for us,

Mr. Chairman, to present him with the irrefutable evidence upon

which he must decide in his administrative capacity to act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: It has been difficult for us, Mr. Chairman,

because of you, to present that order to the

Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just make the

distinction. The request for an inquiry is quite proper under

the estimates as part of his administrative responsibility and

the reasons for this. However, if you continue at length to

present the facts, or to discuss the facts, or consider the

facts, it becomes a debate itself on the conduct of the Premier

and the Minister of Agriculture. Therefore I would rule any

further comments on the facts out of order.

MR. McGEER: We're going to be prevented in this debate, Mr.

Chairman, to say why the Attorney-General should order a

judicial inquiry. Are you listening to him or are you listening

to other advice? We can have a recess of the House while you

get coached.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The issue is perfectly clear to the Chair; we

are considering the administrative responsibility of the

Attorney-General.

MR. McGEER: That's exactly what I'm doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're asking the Hon. Members of the House

while we're in committee considering these estimates to confine

their questions and comments to his administrative

responsibilities.

MR. McGEER: That's right. I quite agree with you, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: But you don't agree with me that the

Attorney-General is failing. And I'm trying to tell you why

he's failing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The request has been made repeatedly

asking the Hon. Attorney-General to make an inquiry because of

certain facts that have been alleged or introduced. If there

are new facts that the Hon. Member wishes to present, he may do

so. However, I have ruled that you may not debate these facts

or ponder upon these facts or consider them. Otherwise it

becomes a debate which is contrary to the rules of the

House.

MR. McGEER: You're acknowledging, Mr. Chairman, I take it,

that what has been presented by the Second Member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is a fact. That has been

disputed, may we say, by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis).

Either item put forward in the Minister of Agriculture's

letter....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order. That is precisely why

I'm making the ruling: because we will get into a full-fledged

debate on the conduct of the Ministers in question. This is

exactly what we don't want to do.

MR. McGEER: It's surely a matter of debate, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why not if they're not doing their

duty?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! I would rule again that

this is not the place to have this debate. The place to have

such a debate would be on a substantive motion questioning the

conduct of these Ministers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We would never get a substantive motion.

You know how this place is run.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is not responsible for that; the

Chairman is responsible to enforce the rules in committee. And

I will so order it.

[ Page 1231 ]

MR. McGEER: You're making the rules up as you go along, Mr.

Chairman. What should happen, if I may just make a point to

you, sir, if we were to pass the Attorney-General's estimates

before he ordered a public inquiry? Then we find on substantive

motion that the evidence we presented, that he really should

have a judicial inquiry, was correct and that he had mistakenly

accepted the word of the Member for Shuswap and felt a judicial

inquiry was unnecessary? You see, we've got conflict of

interest.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. D.D. Stupich) told us he

forgot. Then he calls a press conference outside this House

last night and admits that he had an agreement and that he'd

reread it. Quite clearly the Minister of Agriculture was not

giving us the facts.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Or the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point I've made is that the

responsibility of the Minister whose estimates we are now

considering is possibly to consider an inquiry. That request

has been made repeatedly. I don't think it needs to be made

again. If there are new facts to present as to why this should

be done, then I'm holding that you can present these new facts.

If you have no new facts, the Chair cannot entertain any debate

on the facts that have been presented.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, of course, we want to hear from

the Attorney- General, which we've not had the opportunity to

do, regarding his attitude towards these new facts which have

been presented. So far the Attorney-General has either left the

room or just remained mute; he's lost his tongue.

While I'm on my feet right now — and we will want to respond

to whatever the Attorney-General has to say — may I ask the

Attorney-General also to respond to the questions we raised

regarding the X-Kalay foundation, which is another aspect of

his responsibility as Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to look at

that if there's been default in filing. Mind you, that does

apply unfortunately to many companies and many societies. We

don't have a computer that picks these things up as quickly as

we would like. That's one of the things we're talking about in

terms of re-organization of the administration of justice and

particularly the financial services. We're also looking in

terms of a new Societies Act , although I don't think

we'll reach it as this session.

I think the Saltspring property was rented by X-Kalay, not purchased. But nevertheless

if there's default in filing, that's something we'll look at. I appreciate the

matter being brought to my attention.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up on what

the Attorney-General has had to say for a moment. When the

provincial government made moneys available to the X-Kalay

foundation — and it's in a completely different category when

the provincial government is sending funds into an organization — it was on the condition that a business manager be appointed

and that the affairs of that society be placed in the hands of

certain directors. I think that was a responsible move on the

part of the government.

The problem is that the business manager suddenly

disappeared and a new business manager was appointed who was

the wife of the director. Some of the key directors of that

foundation resigned. That didn't happen yesterday; that

happened quite some time ago. That should be a warning to the

government and to the Attorney-General's department. It's all

very well for the Attorney-General to say,"Look, we don't have

a computer here with which we can pick up things that would

ordinarily not be within our notice." But, Mr. Chairman, for

heaven's sakes, it was right under the government's nose. They

should have been quite able to sniff something like this out. I

hope the government's going to take vigorous action.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I have to support this call

for an inquiry. I would like to encourage the Attorney-General

to call for this inquiry because there's new evidence. Are you

ready, Mr. Chairman? The paragraph to which the Hon. Second

Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has referred gives us the

evidence. The Minister of Agriculture clearly suggests that an

agreement exists. The Premier of the province stands in his

place yesterday and categorically — that's his word — denies

that an agreement exists. There is a conflict, blatant

conflict, which the Attorney-General has the responsibility to

resolve.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think they both agree on that.

MR. SCHROEDER: Just a minute, now, just a minute. It says

here in this paragraph: "As I re-read the Kovachich agreement

as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich" — and here's the

evidence — "in the presence of others...." I suggest to you,

Mr. Chairman, that the only way we will know whether an

agreement exists or does not exist is if we have the power to

call for these other persons and papers. The only way we can

get these powers is to call for a judicial inquiry, have a

group sit together, call for these persons and papers, and find

out whether or not this agreement really did exist. I

[ Page 1232 ]

would suggest to the Attorney-General that he do this

forthwith.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the cry has repeatedly gone

out that if we put forward new evidence the subject can

continue. Right? You've made that statement yourself.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the evidence is new and if

it's a request to the Attorney-General for an inquiry and this

is....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Very good, Mr. Chairman. Let me put

forward some new evidence, unknown to this House; at least, not

officially known to this House. A number of things.

First, none of us here were present at the press conference,

except of course the Minister of Agriculture and the Hon.

Provincial Secretary. They were present but none of the rest of

us were. So let's have the information from the press

conference. The only way we can get that is from the press

stories.

Let me read into the record this new evidence which we did

not have in this House, which did not come when the Minister of

Agriculture who had these facts in his possession was

discussing his estimates, or the Premier when he had the facts

in possession was discussing his estimates. Let's look at what

they did afterwards, after their votes had passed, now that

they've got the Attorney-General on the fire. Let's look at the

quotes from that press conference:

"Hall and Stupich released the letter at a news conference

called, they said, to head off a predicted attack by opposition

parties." Clear motive.

"Hall said opposition Members have been filibustering the

spending estimates of Attorney-General Alex Macdonald until

they could obtain the letter and use it as ammunition against

the government."

These are things that have never been mentioned; these

quotes have never been brought forward in this House. Get the

next one:

"'Rather than wait around for the bomb to drop,' Hall said,

the government decided to take the offensive and release the

letter."

They know so well there's a bomb and that this letter is the

bomb, and that this letter shows clearly that we have not had a

full accounting from either of the two previous Ministers and,

furthermore, that Minister sitting there, the Attorney-General,

should be doing something about it, not protecting his brother

Ministers.

Now, further information from that press conference....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would make the point that in

your last remark you did, in fact question the conduct of a

Minister. This is precisely what I've ruled against. If you

present the evidence without comment, then we'll accept it.

Otherwise, no.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I won't question the motives of the

Ministers for having a press conference late at night when

their own estimates have passed and those of the

Attorney-General are on the floor, after running us through the

supper hour in the hope that they could wear us down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member proceed

with his new evidence?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

"Stupich called a news conference with Hall as the House

ground through the normal supper break, and said the agreement

referred to in his letter was an entirely different matter from

the question of reducing levies, and occurred months

afterward."

The only trouble with that statement is that it's directly

contrary to what Sy Kovachich himself said in Prince George —

directly contrary. Let me read that: "March 9. No Political

Favours Says Eggman" is the headline.

"Kovachich said the only meeting where his personal dispute

with the board was discussed was near the end of October, 1972,

in Victoria. Barrett is alleged to have threatened the egg

board during the meeting on October 27, 1972."

Yet now, despite that statement by Kovachich that that was

the only meeting, we have the claim by Ministers that "Oh, no,

there was a meeting months later, something else; this didn't

refer to the original meeting at all." Well, if it didn't, if

we accept their word, Mr. Chairman, there have been two cases

of undue influence: one in the case of the $13,800 reduction,

the other in the case referred to in this letter.

There have been cases, not one, and that's new information,

I believe — new information based on what the Minister of

Agriculture, now in the room, said yesterday outside this House

at a press conference.

Stupich said of the letter,"I don't feel it's damaging or

significant enough to delay the work of the House." My mind can

hardly grasp how he can make such a statement, such a patently

absurd statement. He goes on to say,"I deny that there ever

was a detailed agreement reached in the Premier's

[ Page 1233 ]

office." Now what do the words "detailed" mean?

There is the weasel word put into that press conference by

the Minister of Agriculture, a weasel word: "detailed." You

know, maybe there's some little detail added by the lawyers —

perhaps a few words like "or similar words to the same effect" — you know, a little addition by the lawyers.

And here is the Minister of Agriculture, if this bomb blows

up in the face of the Premier, able to say,"Oh, it wasn't the

detailed agreement; it was just 99.99 per cent of the agreement

that happened before." And the extra tenth of one per cent, of

course, was the addition of the lawyers when they drew up the

formal wording of an agreement which he himself, the Minister

of Agriculture, agreed had taken place when he signed that

letter dated August 14, 1973.

Mr. Chairman, the news story goes on to say:

"He said he was giving his explanation of the letter's

meaning before it came up in the House from the opposition to

stress that it has nothing to do with the earlier meeting on

financial levies — a clear attempt, as he said earlier, to head

off a predicted attack by opposition parties."

That was my first quote from that news conference as

reported by the Vancouver Sun in this morning's

paper.

That is new information for the House to ponder upon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The information that the Hon.

Member is presenting is to the Attorney-General as to the

reasons why an inquiry should be made. I would ask you to speak

to that point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure you

would because you've been fair in this. It's new information,

not previously mentioned in the House, just like the letter,

which I attempted to read last night and was only just getting

into before the 11 o'clock time came and I was cut off by the

Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). At that stage, Mr.

Chairman, we didn't have a chance to discuss this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are things breaking down over there?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We didn't have a chance to discuss this. It's been

raised again this morning, and again we've spent very, very little time in this

House on the letter, the letter which was read into the record today by the

Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), the letter of August

14 from the Minister of Agriculture, David D. Stupich, to Mr. W. Janzen, Chairman

of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had statements by the Premier

towards the end of the day to the effect that the agreement was

set up by the lawyers. Well, sure, it was put in words by the

lawyers, it was put down. The agreement was actually formalized

by the lawyers, but formalizing agreement that has already been

reached is an obvious job of lawyers, and one the

Attorney-General well knows takes place day after day after

day.

The Premier went on to say: "There is no written agreement

between Mr. Kovachich and I. I state that categorically." What

does he mean by that — that he didn't sign an agreement? Does

he mean that? Or does he simply mean that he hadn't seen a

written agreement, that he hasn't seen what the legal draftsman

did to the verbal, oral and binding agreement, as far as

Kovachich was concerned, between himself and the Premier of the

Province of British Columbia.

I don't understand why the Attorney-General sits here in the

face of evidence of undue influence, in the face of evidence,

consistent evidence, that there has been influence used in the

Egg Marketing Board, pressure used upon them, and pretend

somehow that he has been right up on his duties and has not

failed in any way. He has failed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is straying

away from the point that I asked him to stay to, which was to

present the evidence and not to get into a debate on the facts

that he's presenting.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we wouldn't want to use the

House for debate. I would like now to quote from another

document not yet referred to, I believe. It's a memorandum to

Members of the British Columbia Legislature from members of the

British Columbia Egg Marketing Board, dated January 31 of this

year. First paragraph:

"This memo is concerned with the contents of recent public statements made by Mr. Hartley Dent, MLA,

Mr. Alf Nunweiler, MLA, and Mr. Doug Kelly, MLA, regarding the

British Columbia Egg Marketing Board." It goes on to say in the

second paragraph:

"The British Columbia Egg Marketing Board have striven to

implement the main guidelines set for the board by the Hon.

Dave Stupich."

It goes on to say on the second page, bottom half:

"Mr. Kovachich is assured of increasing to the maximum of 6,000 dozen through the agreement between him

and the board, drawn on the instructions of the Hon. Premier,

Dave Barrett. "

New information. Interesting information. All

this information is available to the Attorney-General. He

[ Page 1234 ]

knows this stuff.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He knows the rules too.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He knows this material. He also knows,

Mr. Chairman, what I know as well and what other Members of

this Legislature know; the gossip of the corridors has it that

just as soon as these estimates are passed, they're going to

release the lawyers' agreements. That's been stated.

We've asked for them time after time, and yet in the

corridors the press expect another press conference, just like

last night, when we had been cut off our right to debate

because of either exhaustion, fatigue, starvation or whatever

it might be. Now, Mr. Chairman, I put forward a lot of new

information and it's all to this effect: the whole case of Sy

Kovachich stinks. It stinks to high heaven.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member is now beginning to

possibly question the conduct of the Ministers in question, and

that can only be done on a substantive motion. The evidence has

been presented. If he wishes to present new facts without

comment....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the questioning I am doing

is of the administration of the Department of the

Attorney-General in the last year-and-a-half, in particular in

the last three months. That's the question. Has the

Attorney-General been fulfilling his duties properly or has he

not? Why in the face of evidence that keeps dribbling in day

after day...? It's a sieve; they try hard to hold back but

they can't. It keeps leaking out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Really, honestly!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What did your colleague the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) do last night, Mr. Attorney-General,

if that's not being....

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

address the Chair. If he has nothing further to offer in the

way of information....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have plenty further to offer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Have you nothing to offer to the people

of this province beyond this kind of stuff?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Attorney-General, I would think that the people

of this province would expect that your government would be beyond the kind

of stuff that's been going on in the last few months.

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

drifting into the consideration of the conduct of a Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I replied to the comment of the

Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to address the

Chair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Very good, Mr. Chairman, I'll address the

chair. If the Attorney-General will be quiet and not throw

comments about expectations, we can get on.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this case is of importance.

The fact is that the Attorney-General of British Columbia has

an independent duty, quite independent of his fellow cabinet

Ministers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon.

Member....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. You

are asking for an inquiry. That's a matter for cabinet, if you

read the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated while the

point of order is made, please?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The other point of order I have is that

if you have got a complaint about the Premier or the Minister

of Agriculture or myself, or any other Member of this House,

you know very well your remedy. It's to take your courage in

your hands and to file a substantive motion.

Okay, ask everybody else to do so, but you won't do it

yourself, will you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! I would comment on the

point of order, rule on the point of order. There were two

matters: one is the conduct of the Member which should be

handled by a substantive motion; the other one is that this is

not directly the administrative responsibility of the

Attorney-General. Also, under standing order 43, this matter

has now been canvassed thoroughly.

The request has been made repeatedly; therefore I would rule

any further discussion on this matter out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I might refer to

chapter 21

of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia. It's called

the Attorney-General Act . First paragraph says:

"The Act may be cited....

[ Page 1235 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Is the Hon. Member standing on a point

of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm referring directly to

the comments made earlier by the Attorney-General on that point

of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then you're on a point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. Paragraph three:

"The duties and powers of the Attorney-General are as

follows: he is the official legal adviser of the

Lieutenant-Governor and the legal Member of the executive

council; he shall see that the administration of public affairs

is in accordance with the law."

Do you understand the importance of that, Mr.

Attorney-General? Perhaps that's another of the Acts that you

haven't read.

You are charged independently, by statute passed by the

Legislature, the people's representatives, to make sure that

the laws are obeyed. You have affidavits. You have evidence.

Information. Charges by the opposition.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But the law has not been obeyed!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. A point of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know. Everybody knows you've called

the Premier a liar five or six times. Now go ahead. Go out in

the corridor and keep up that conduct if you want to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please! The point of order is

well taken in this respect that he is drawing the attention of

the House to the administrative abilities of the

Attorney-General. However, I have ruled that any further

request to the Attorney-General it is now out of order inasmuch

as it has been thoroughly canvassed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General

indicated earlier — and this is the point of order; this is why

we moved from the original debate, and why I rose on the point

of order — that somehow or another any inquiry would have to be

done by the whole Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the whole

cabinet. He hung his hat on the Inquiries Act . He

pretended that he didn't have any independent responsibility,

that he was just a minister like the others. My point of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The point I am making is: I am

not questioning the Hon. Member's point that there is an

administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General,

according to my understanding of what he said. However, what I

am ruling is that the request to the Attorney-General has now

been made repeatedly over a period of time and that information

has been given why this should be done. I am now ruling that we

should not pursue the matter any further under standing order

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, you were anticipating. I

was asked by you to stay on a point of order. I was trying

desperately to, and now you have jumped ahead to something

else.

I'm still on the point of order raised by the

Attorney-General which was that he didn't have an independent

responsibility because somehow or another it was the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That is the point of order

raised by the Attorney-General, and on which you ask me

correctly, Mr. Chairman, to restrict myself to, and that is

what I am trying to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Please do not ask me now to go into my

previous debate because you are telling me I can't do it. I'll

stick on the point of order with your permission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Member rose on a point of

order and I have ruled, as the Chairman, that it would appear

that the point of order is well taken: that the

Attorney-General, in fact, does have administrative

responsibility. However, I have also ruled that the Hon. Member

should not pursue the matter any further because it has already

been pursued repeatedly. I have allowed new information to be

presented. The information has apparently now been presented

and therefore I would rule any further discussion of this

matter out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will certainly abide by your ruling, as

I appreciate the fact that you realized it was a point of order

that I was on my feet to discuss — the point of order so

forgotten by the Attorney- General when he pretended his duties

did not include the administration of public affairs....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed to another

matter please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would request the

Attorney-General at this stage to use his good offices to make

sure....

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

[ Page 1236 ]

ruling and I would ask the Hon. Member to proceed on to

another matter.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's done that. I heard you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was going to request him to use his

good offices, use his powers of persuasion, use his eloquence

to persuade the members of the cabinet, who have in their

possession the legal documents that we requested yesterday, to

make them available before the end of this debate because the

type of activity that your cabinet is carrying on is not such

that we in the opposition can agree with or have confidence in

you when this type of thing happens.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. I yield to the Second

Member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Dealing with the administrative duties of the

Attorney-General and, as my colleague who just sat down did,

referring to the Attorney-General Act , it says that "he," referring to the Attorney-General, is the official

adviser of the Lieutenant-Governor and the legal member of the

Executive Council. So, Mr. Attorney-General, in your capacity

as legal adviser, and having taken the point that it is up the

Lieutenant-Governor to order a public inquiry, will you, as

legal adviser to the Lieutenant-Governor, recommend such a

public inquiry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member....

MR. GARDOM: He said he can't....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has made a ruling

that the subject has now been thoroughly canvassed and

therefore under standing order 43....

MR. GARDOM: Well, all right, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've just given new evidence. We have to

have the opportunity to discuss the evidence.

MR. GARDOM: Colleague, if I can carry on....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The request has been made

repeatedly that the Attorney-General act in this matter. New

evidence was introduced and I could ask the Hon. Member....

I have made the point that the subject has now been thoroughly canvassed and

therefore I would ask him to go on to another subject.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, you have made an exceptionally

intelligent ruling and I concur with it. You're asking for new

evidence; we are asking for all of the evidence. That is what

this Legislative Assembly has not received.

Mr. Chairman, I have some new evidence that I just received

on the telephone about 10 minutes ago dealing with this topic.

That new enough for you?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm not questioning the Hon.

Member's intentions. I am simply making the point that the

subject has now been thoroughly canvassed. The request....

MR. GARDOM: This subject has never been canvassed

before!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The request has been made to the

Attorney-General repeatedly, therefore I would rule that any

further discussion is out of order.

MR. GARDOM: I am going to introduce....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point, necessarily, in

presenting new evidence at this time.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, you've turned 180 degrees and in

under two minutes! You said if there's new evidence, let's hear

it. And you are going to hear it or you'll throw me out of this

chamber! I received this over the telephone 10 minutes ago!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Let him speak.

MR. GARDOM: Violations of the laws of the Province of

British Columbia. I'll read you the Attorney- General

Act: "He has the regulation and conduct of all litigation

for or against the Crown, or of any public department in

respect of any subject within the authority of jurisdiction of

the Legislature." And that enfolds this man's responsibilities

to enforce the provisions of the B.C. Natural Products

Marketing Act and regulations issued there under.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member will allow

me permission to speak for a moment, I will say that if the

information is totally new, is not something that has been

brought in before and is germane to the point of asking the

Attorney-General to conduct an inquiry, then I would ask him to

take his place again.

[ Page 1237 ]

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, laws have got to be clear; they've

got to be concise. They have got to be certain. They have to be

capable of being enforced. It is the responsibility, in not

only this democratic society but in any democratic society, of

the chief law enforcement officer to see that the law of any

particular jurisdiction, which would be his jurisdiction, would

be followed. That's a simple point: to see that in B.C. we live

by the rule of law.

We don't live by the rule of kicks or of vituperation, but

by the rule of law, and that's the only standard. The

Attorney-General was talking about standards; that is the only

standard the people of B.C. wish to live by. Without that, Mr.

Chairman, there is no certainty and we may as well just return

to primitive strength.

About 10 minutes ago, I received a telephone call from a

gentleman by the name of Glen Redline. He is an egg producer in

Delta. He has licence number 486. He owes the Egg Marketing

Board $1,999.71. He has not paid his monthly dues, I gather,

for the better part of the year and he says he will not pay

until he sees producers in the Province of British Columbia

treated equally. He is supposed to pay monthly and he says he

won't pay by virtue of the Kovachich incident because producers

in the Province of B.C. have not been treated equally. This is

what he says.

He says that this was discussed at open meetings of the B.C.

Egg Producers' Association, and as short a time ago as one

month back, he had 100 per cent support from the directors of

the B.C. Egg Producers' Association of the step that he is

taking. His licence is supposed to be renewed by the end of

February. So far, it has not been. So far, he is still earning

his livelihood and, God willing, he will be able to continue to

do that by producing eggs.

Here is a man who is saying that he wants the same kind of

treatment; he wants one rule of law for everybody in the

Province of B.C. It is the responsibility of the

Attorney-General, according to the statute — unless he is going

to amend it this session — to have the conduct and regulation

of all litigation for or against the Crown or any public

departments. This is within his control.

Mr. Chairman, the sad thing that is happening here is that

the framework of society is crumbling because the government is

not following the law. If it will follow the law, you won't run

into these kinds of situations as developed by Mr. Glen

Redline. All he is asking is that there be one law: One for

him; one for you; one for me, and the same law for the friends

of the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 11 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, you cannot, at this stage, call a vote

on this vote 11. There is simply no way that we can tolerate the failure of

the Attorney-General to carry out the duties in accordance with

chapter 21 of

the Revised Statutes of British Columbia. There is no way that you can ask us

to pass this vote.

The subject is one of acute importance. The Attorney-General

.... I read out quotes from him yesterday about the need for

total....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I did indicate to the Second

Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that he could

speak providing he presented new evidence, which he did.

However, I have also ruled, under standing order 43, that since

the request has been made repeatedly to the Attorney-General

for an inquiry, this should not be done again.

Any further request of this nature is out or order, or any

arguments why this should be done is out of order. If there is

new information then the Chair will allow the Member to

proceed. However, if he has nothing definite and new to

contribute, then I would rule any further discussion out of

order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I regret that decision. The

reason I regret it, of course, is that your own name occurred

on the heading in the first paragraph of the Egg Marketing

Board memorandum which I read in as new evidence. Apparently

there is a conflict of interest here and I would request, Mr.

Chairman, with respect, that you leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to point out to the Hon. Member

that while my name was mentioned in some obscure way, or came

in in some way, there seems to be some doubt in his mind, and

perhaps in other Members' minds. Therefore I might be

prejudiced in terms of the way I would rule from the chair.

Therefore, I would respect the Hon. Member's sensitivities and

I will get a substitute to take my place during the rest of

this debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

fact that you've accepted that suggestion, and I appreciate the

fact that I believe you have today tried very hard to be fair

in this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have sent for the Deputy Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Try a new one for a change, for variety.

How about D'Arcy? He hasn't said much recently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Until such time as the Deputy Chairman returns

I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River to take the

chair.

[Mr. Chabot in the chair.]

[ Page 1238 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, back to the serious question. On

February 25 of this year the Attorney-General of the Province

of British Columbia made the following statement in this

Legislature.

"I would hope, too, Mr. Speaker, if I could change the

subject for a minute, that the Legislature would address itself

to the question of honesty in government. We've heard some of

the people, more in the municipalities than anywhere else, say

that they would rather quit than have a disclosure bill in

respect to their assets. But really, Mr. Speaker, I think this

matter we're dealing with is of real substance. I don't think

we can afford as legislators or as municipal councilors to have

even the suspicion of government by influence peddling."

Words of the Attorney-General of British Columbia — "I don't

think we can afford as legislators or as municipal councilors

to have even the suspicion of government by influence peddling" — or government by crony.

"I think even the MLAs that are here today must agree that

they have to be, like Calpurnia, above suspicion."

The actual quote, Mr. Chairman, is "about" suspicion, but

"above" suspicion is the word which presumably the

Attorney-General meant.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

"We had the inquiry into Surrey a short while ago, and

the commissioner, Donald White, had this to say: '...the

necessity for complete disclosure and candidness at all times

where one conducts even private business in the open. When such

a person is a public official, then suspicions are allayed

"I say it's in the interest of us as legislators and it's in

the interest of the municipal councilors that their assets

should be out in the open and know so that there will be full

disclosure by the public.' "

It was a good statement and I'm glad the Attorney-General

likes hearing it again, because it's absolutely the crux of our

present problems, Mr. Chairman. The question is that even a

suspicion of government by influence peddling, or government by

crony, must be rejected.

He's made it perfectly clear. We've had far more than

suspicions; we've had affidavits, and we've had letters signed

by cabinet Ministers. We've had statements by the Premier, the

Minister of Agriculture, and now the Attorney-General. We've

had statements by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). There is

far more than a suspicion. There is a prima facie case and

under

chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of British

Columbia this case, this prima facie case, means that there

is an obligation on the Attorney-General to act.

The Attorney-General didn't like it yesterday when I referred to the Sommers

case. I am going to refer to it again in this context....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I thought that was a low blow.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You thought it was a low blow.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and I still do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And he still does. Any further comment

you'd like me to read in the record for you, Mr.

Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That expresses my opinion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But the issue I raised yesterday was not

the guilt or otherwise of Mr. Sommers. It was not the

impropriety or otherwise of the Department of Lands and Forests

and the companies involved. It was not that at all. The issue I

raised was strictly that of the Attorney-General, the

Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia, rejecting

all reasonable requests from Hon. Members of the opposition

such as Webster, Gibson, Gargrave, Gregory, Brown — even

Strachan.

These men consistently, and I think honourably, raised

issues of importance which should have been looked into. At

that time they had no knowledge of the outcome of any lawsuit.

They had no knowledge of certainty or otherwise of guilt. But

they did know that there was a prima facie case and that the

Attorney-General had a responsibility.

Every one of the quotes I gave you yesterday, Mr. Chairman,

through you to the Attorney-General, was related only to the

conduct of the Attorney-General of the Province of British

Columbia — Mr. Robert Bonner in those days — where I feel he

was derelict in his duty. I feel it because, as I said, I

quoted from Members who I believe to be honourable men. They

made statements of general principle, general principle which

applies much in this case as in that. The tables have changed.

The roles are reversed. The opposition is now the government.

But surely the standards of the old CCF have not been totally

forgotten by the new NDP. Surely the fact that there was a name

change — one of those unity party efforts of the '60s — surely

the efforts there....

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): On a

point of order. My name has been mentioned relating to a debate that took

[ Page 1239 ]

place in this house some 18 years ago. I was present. Let me

point out to that Member that what he is discussing has been

thoroughly canvassed for two weeks in this House. A ruling has

already been made that it cannot be canvassed again.

But for the benefit of the Member who is speaking, I want to

inform him that there is absolutely no comparison in any way,

shape or form of what we canvassed 18 years ago and that which

you are attempting to canvass today. Absolutely no comparison

whatsoever. I think it is a reflection on this House when that

Member carries on this way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's really a point of

order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The point of order is that it has already

been canvassed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to raise that point with the Member:

the debate is out of order on the basis of rule 43, of which

you are well aware.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we've raised new

information today. Much of it we've requested, that once again

we are not put in that foolish and, I think, degrading position

of having press conferences late at night or after the House

has finished sitting — things of that nature — when we are

trying to discuss the people's business in the forum which our

forebears established for that very purpose, namely the

Legislature of the Province of British Columbia.

It is simple for people to say that there is a great, great

difference; but I ask them to go back, as I have done, and read

the two years of debates on the issue that eventually led to

the Sommers conviction.

It is fine for the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) to get up and say that we've discussed this

for two weeks. We discussed the other thing for two years. An

election took place, a by-election took place in the

interim.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But there is no relation between the

two.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is no relation between the two?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, come on, Mr. Minister of Transport

and Communications.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a dirty, rotten smear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! If you are canvassing the conduct of another

Minister, you cannot do it under this vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if he gets heard on a point of

order, I can at least reply, surely. Insults from his

chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're dealing with the Attorney-General's

estimates. That's what you should be dealing with.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you were out of the

room at the time. I can re-read you the sections of

chapter 21

dealing with his responsibilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm being well-advised here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry it took you so long, then, to

get to the chamber.

The fact is that the issue with respect to the

Attorney-General was identical in the case of Robert Bonner and

in the case of Alex Macdonald.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't mind the casual things; but,

really, to bring in the Sommers thing here....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just be quiet for a minute. I'm

talking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: At long last!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And to bring in the Sommers thing, where

there was a criminal charge under the Criminal Code of

Canada, and compare it with this debate where no criminal

charge has been stated, no accused has been stated, no

suggestion that there is anything under the Criminal

Code of Canada.... There's a suggestion that this

agreement made with lawyers was illegal. Okay, that's fine to

canvass that. But to compare that with the Sommers case is the

most unworthy kind of debate that is possible to take place in

any legislature in the world. They are totally dissimilar.

I have to agree, even though the word is a strong one, that

this is a smear of the worst kind and that you, Hon. Member,

are engaging in gutter mud-slinging. You should be thoroughly

ashamed of yourself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He's attempting to cloud the fact that

I'm referring to the conduct of Robert Bonner, Attorney-General

for the Province of British Columbia, who afterwards continued

to remain in that office, who afterwards continued to sit in

this Legislature, and who afterwards took responsible

[ Page 1240 ]

positions outside the public life of this province. I'm

comparing his conduct with yours. That is the issue. He didn't

have these inquiries; he was presented with affidavits....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Go ahead. Carry right on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He had prima facie evidence....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As long as we know what we're talking

about and what you're doing, you carry right on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I certainly will carry right on.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know what you're doing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if you know, perhaps you can get up

and say.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. DENT: Mr. Chairman, as the Member for Skeena I

relinquished the chair in order that there can be the absolute

amount of fairness in terms of the way the rules are being

followed in the House. I would also ask that this fairness be

applied to the other Members of the House as well. I think the

Hon. Member is out of order in that this is, first of all, a

subject that has been thoroughly canvassed and, secondly he is

bringing in the discussion of the conduct of other Ministers in

the House, which is clearly out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point is well taken and I'll guard

carefully what the Member says.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I would like to point out again

that, despite the efforts of two Ministers of the Crown now to

switch the discussion of the issue from one Robert Bonner, a

former Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia, to

one Robert Sommers, a former Minister of Lands and Forests, the

issue is still that of Robert Bonner. The issue is still that

the comparison between this man's failure to look into a case

and Robert Bonner's failure to look into a case. Perhaps other

Members of the government feel that goes too close to the bone.

Perhaps they don't like it.

But the fact of the matter is that Bonner's conduct was very similar to the

conduct we're seeing from this man over there, the Attorney-General at the present

time in 1974. I read to you quotes. None of them referred to a criminal case,

none of them referred to the conviction of a cabinet Minister; all of which

referred only to the conduct of the Attorney-General of British Columbia in

the year 1956.

Those quotes, I think, are pertinent because the issue is

similar in this respect. The issue — and it is obvious we are

discussing the Attorney-General's estimates — is the conduct of

the Attorney-General in this whole shabby affair. The issue

was similar in 1956. There is no way I can deny it or anyone

across the way can deny it. The issue is identical. Was the

Attorney-General then...?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh ho, you had better go back again and

refresh your memory. The fact is that in 1956 the case was very

simple. The case of the Member, such as Webster, such as

Gregory, such as Gibson, such as Brown....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Go ahead, I'm listening.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm sure it's tough to take,

because your actions are just on a par with those of Robert

Bonner.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! If the Member has nothing

further to say, you can take your seat and I will recognize

somebody else.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I intend to carry on because this is a

matter fundamental to our functioning in the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want to remind you again that you are

repeating, as it says in rule 43, of which you are well

aware.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have to repeat issues because they are

not understood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rules don't allow you to keep

repeating.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, Mr. Chairman, precedent allows....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you proceed with your speech, if

you have something new to say.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I raised new information

today which was not canvassed when you were in the House,

namely the press

[ Page 1241 ]

conference yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm well aware it has been canvassed, fully

canvassed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It hasn't been fully canvassed. We only

raised the evidence; we haven't even discussed it in the

Legislature as yet. You make a judgment in advance of

discussion, and I don't like that. I think that's wrong,

because you are meant to be occupying an impartial position in

the chair. I suggest you have your conduct based upon that of

the Hon. Member for Skeena who, at least this morning, I think,

made a very excellent effort to try and be impartial. The fact

is that new evidence has come forward.

At a press conference last night of which no Member of this

House had knowledge, except perhaps the Ministers who sat

there, new evidence came forward from the Socred Member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), dealing with a lawsuit,

naming a man, Glen A. Redline of 7935-120th Street, Delta;

Size of Flock, 7,848.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are being repetitive. You can't

take the position that the person in the chair has changed.

Your offence is to the House and to this committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That is the first time Redline has been

mentioned in this whole affair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, you read that before, this

morning.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to discuss the question of

Redline.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you read rule 43?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have read rule 43. It is my right to

discuss the Redline case, my right as an elected representative

elected by the electors of British Columbia. You have no right

to rule me out of order on that or subjects similar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to rule you out of order when you

are repetitious because you know what is asserted in rule

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sit back and wait until it happens and

don't anticipate debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've already waited.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. This whole case is

related to the Egg Marketing Board. That comes under the

Department of Agriculture.

You have ruled that this is repetitious; it doesn't belong

in this department. If the Member is unsatisfied, he has one

alternative, and that is to challenge your ruling. No

alternative but to challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On that point of

order, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to raise a point of order or are

you going to argue a point of order?

MR. GIBSON: I was going to mention a ruling that Mr.

Chairman made earlier on today which bears directly on this

point. While indeed the facts of the case may relate to the Egg

Marketing Board, it is within the administrative competence and

responsibility of the Attorney-General. It is for that reason

that we are bringing this up under his estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Redline case is interesting, Mr.

Chairman. Here you have a man who has decided that he will not

pay his egg levy to the marketing board because he believes he

is not being treated as other producers in the Province of

British Columbia are being treated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I am going to read you what it says in

rule 43.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Go right ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called attention

of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member

who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of

his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in

debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech...."

You are

repeating the argument of another Member, the Second Member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, are you trying to suggest

that if that Member mentioned something the opposition can't

mention it, or that if they mention something we can't mention

it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am ruling that you are being repetitious and

tedious, and that you're repeating the argument of another

Member. I am ruling that if you want to continue that you'll

have to challenge my ruling. It's not a question of you

personally. The rules

[ Page 1242 ]

of the House are here and I'd like to agree with you, but

that's impossible under the rules of this House, and you know

it as well as I do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Let me read you rule 43 as you've read it

to me. "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's repetitious! (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, don't be facetious!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have read the rules; you can read the

rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The word is "tedious," and the

word is "repetitious." Now, I have not mentioned these things

to date. He has, and he's only raised them; we've not debated

them. They've not been mentioned by any government Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Shall vote 11 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly not!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly not be repetitious

and I will try not to be tedious.

As the Attorney-General sits there pondering the question of

a public inquiry, I'd like to bring to his attention a

complexity which, since it hasn't been officially brought to

the attention of the House, may not have registered with him.

It was a complexity raised by two of his colleagues last night

in a press conference. And that complexity is this: the new

evidence read into the record by the Second Member for Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) this morning, and raised first last night by

the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), relates to

a second and distinct meeting.

Mr. Chairman, in that context it certainly increases and

possibly doubles the arguments that I trust the

Attorney-General is turning around in his mind with respect to

the need for a public inquiry. The elements, of course, in the

first suggestion were three-part — the element of backroom

pressure, the element of a political payoff and the element of

a cover-up by the Premier and the government.

The second meeting, which was the one raised in the letter

from the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich),

described by him in the press conference as a separate and

independent meeting, certainly has one of those elements of

backroom pressure. It looks to me that it has the beginnings of

a cover-up. The question of the favouritism to Mr. Kovachich is

renewed in a very different way.

MR. DENT: Point of order. There were two rulings made from the Chair,

one of which was that the matter was becoming repetitive. The other one was

that there should be no debate which called into question the conduct of any

other Minister, and that the information to be presented was simply to present

the reasons why there should be an inquiry.

I would say that the Hon. Member is trespassing into the

area of debate which is calling into question the conduct of

Ministers of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point is well made and I would

advise the Member that you should not be dealing with the

conduct of another Ministry under this debate.

MR. GIBSON: I am trying to complete very briefly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a procedure for doing that, as I am

sure you are aware. If you're not, it's a substantive

motion.

MR. GIBSON: I am suggesting to the Attorney-General that

this second meeting adds a second reason, and possibly a double

reason. I mentioned two of the elements that were present in

the first case that may have been present in the second case. I

was simply going to conclude by saying that the third element

of a favour to Mr. Kovachich from the government was again

potentially raised by this new evidence. I would ask the

Attorney-General to consider in his mind the question and

discover the question as to whether the quota increase which

was given was in fact paid for....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to raise with you once again that

you're questioning the conduct of another Minister, which you

must do under his estimates or by the other process, not

under the Attorney-General's estimates. You are dealing with

the estimates of the Attorney-General's office and that's what

you should be dealing with.

MR. GIBSON: I am trying not to question the conduct of the

other Minister, Mr. Chairman. I'm simply stating without

comment the fact that in fact Mr. Kovachich was given an

increase in quota of 120 cases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I bring to your attention that you are

questioning the conduct of another Minister.

MR. GIBSON: I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are, and that's been ruled out earlier

today. The rules are very clear on that.

MR. GIBSON: I am simply suggesting to the Attorney-General

that he discover whether or not

[ Page 1243 ]

those extra quota....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That request has been made repeatedly, and I

would rule you out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, that's the first time in this

debate and in this House that the request has been made that

the Attorney-General attempt to discover whether or not that

120 cases of extra quota was paid for. That completes the

element of comparison between the first meeting and the second

meeting, each of them apparently having that three part element

of comparison that should justify in the Attorney-General's

mind the repeated request we are making for a public

inquiry.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there is no way that vote

11 can pass until we have some answers from the

Attorney-General.

He has consistently refused to answer legitimate questions.

Representing the views of the majority of people in the

province, we have questioned him as to why he, in his

independent capacity under

chapter 21 of the Revised

Statutes of British Columbia , has not been obeying the law,

or has not been insisting that others obey the law.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I answered that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You tried to avoid it. The question, Mr.

Chairman, is this: can we at this stage vote the estimates of a

man who will not be candid with the House as to his reasons for

not pursuing this by way of a public inquiry? Can we pass the

estimates of a Minister who will not take steps to check into

impropriety in the case of a brother Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That inquiry has been repeatedly

requested and it's repetitive and tedious. You're questioning

the motives of a Member of this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I will repeat a motion made

18 years ago by a Member of the CCF at that time with respect

to the estimates of Robert Bonner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You shouldn't be repeating anything.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I just simply then will put forward the

same motion as was put forward many years ago by a Member of

the old CCF when a similar case occurred. The motion is that

the salary of the Hon. Attorney-General, as provided for in

vote 11, be reduced by $1.

In so doing, I would remind Members of the experience of past years where backbenchers

brought sense to the government on an issue very similar to this one.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I want to speak to the amendment

and say that what we've seen today and through this motion is a

denigration of the whole process of parliament by one Member

who has taken a bit in his teeth for his own political survival

and attacked perhaps one of the best Attorneys-General this

province has ever had.

There's more to a motion of non-confidence against the

Attorney-General than any other cabinet Member. There's more to

this because it also reflects the time-honoured tradition of

that man being a lawyer. And there is, Mr. Chairman, almost an

accusation through this type of motion that he is not following

professional conduct as well as....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. In no way

am I implying....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Take your seat! I have a point of

order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I want him to make his point of order

so I can hear it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In no way am I suggesting that the

Attorney-General, in his personal, professional capacity as a

lawyer, is inadequate. I am saying in his capacity only as an

Attorney-General under

chapter 21, in which it is uniquely....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's an argument, not a point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In continuing my argument, to have that

Member stand in this House and compare this Attorney-General to

the action of a former Attorney-General who refused to look at

criminal actions for two years is absolutely disgraceful, in my

opinion, and the lowest form of politics I've seen in my 14

years in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I don't expect to convince that Member of

anything. Nor am I up here to attempt to convince him. His mind

is in the gutter and hasn't left there for two weeks, as far as

this House goes.

Mr. Chairman, I note that the Member doesn't even ask for a

withdrawal of that. Perhaps it's tacit acceptance of what I

just said. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, when such remarks are

directed at me I will ask for a withdrawal. But they somehow

typify the Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett).

[ Page 1244 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw

unequivocally.

Mr. Chairman, this motion is an attack, not just on the

Attorney-General, but in my opinion an attack on him as a

lawyer. Because if you read Hansard , the attempt to link

his behaviour with that of Robert Bonner is absolutely

disgraceful and you, sir, through you, Mr. Chairman, are the

one who brought up Mr. Bonner's name and now you're trying to

deny that you did not try to make a connection between that

attorney and this....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you got a point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, a point indeed of personal

privilege. I again repeat, I did not wish to infer any improper

conduct on the Attorney-General....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I rule that that's an argument and not a point

of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, further....

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will not sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two days!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That's not a point of order. You

may have the floor to talk to the amendment, if you wish.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I will speak

on in due course. But the point of order is this: that in no

way was that an implication upon Robert Bonner as a lawyer. It

was an implication upon their activities as Attorneys-General

and those attempts of red herrings by the Premier as far as

throwing responsibility himself are ridiculous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That's not a point of order, that's an

argument.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Another evidence of the Member's inability to control

himself or conform to the rules of this House. You'll have an opportunity to

speak. Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting that the Member flares up every

30 seconds. He's had the floor for two days in a vilification of that Attorney-General,

a calculated political attack against that Attorney-General in a manner, in

my opinion, that does not befit any Member of this House. But be that on his

head, not on mine.

I say that I reject this motion completely. This

Attorney-General has served this province in an admirable

fashion. He has the respect and admiration of his professional

colleagues and almost every citizen of this province.

What we're seeing through this motion is a calculated

attempt by the opposition to go through every single Minister

and reduce their salary by $1, every single Minister that's

been to the House so far, every single one, in a calculated

attempt to somehow level some form of smear against this

government.

I'm proud of this Attorney-General and I think the people of

this province are. And I reject categorically that motion.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): I can

appreciate the defence that the Hon. Premier has raised of the

Hon. Attorney-General. However, I think it's an emotional one

based upon his own personal view, not with any arguments. With

respect to the conduct of the Attorney-General in the course of

this debate and in fulfillment of his responsibilities of the

very high office that he holds. I would like to hear from the

Attorney-General on what to me seems to be the most fundamental

point in this whole debate.

We have had questions raised in this House, and outside as

well, with respect to the performance by other members of the

government of their responsibilities. Suggestions which have

clearly indicated a basis upon which belief could rest that

members of the cabinet have improperly interfered in the laws

of the Province of British Columbia.

Motives have been expressed for the reasons that those

Ministers would have interfered in this particular way. I

suggest it's improper for cabinet Ministers, Premier or

otherwise, to use the authority of their office to cause

people to act otherwise than in accordance with the laws of

this province. Those are the clear implications from the

affidavits which have been discussed and the allegations which

have been made on the floor of this House, and indeed from

documents presented by cabinet Ministers as recently as last

night.

Now is the Attorney-General saying to us in this committee,

to the legislators in this House and to the people of the

Province of British Columbia, that when such serious matters

are brought to public attention and to his, that he has no role

to play and no responsibility to determine whether or not those

charges are well founded? Is he saying that based upon the

experience in the Sommers case that his responsibility as the

Attorney-General is to do nothing until such time as a mass of

evidence has accumulated and criminal charges are clearly

[ Page 1245 ]

indicated? Is that your responsibility, Mr.

Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On what charge?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Chairman, if the Hon.

Attorney-General would listen to my argument instead of

responding to words that seem to inflame him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Answer the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound has the floor.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I ask the Attorney-General again, now if

he'll listen. So you have no role to play when these serious

implications are raised with respect to the conduct of Cabinet

Ministers until such a time as a mass of evidence exists that

criminal charges are indicated? Do you do nothing until that

stage is reached?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Name your criminal charge.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not suggesting there is evidence....

AN HON. MEMBER: You are, you are.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not suggesting there are.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Name the charge.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'll say it again. Please listen. Do you

sit back and do nothing until such time as you have a mass of

evidence upon which a criminal charge can be based? Is that

your responsibility as the Attorney-General of this Province?

Do nothing unless and until evidence exists upon which a

criminal charge can be based against a cabinet Minister?

That's the issue here. That was the issue in the Sommers

case. Problems were raised in the Sommers case, debate went on.

It was two years before the evidence clearly indicated the

basis for a criminal charge. Now is your responsibility as one

of the highest officers of the Crown of the province to do

nothing until we reach that stage? Is that what you're telling

the Members of this House and the public of British Columbia?

That you are unable to move and unwilling to move to make

inquiries into the conduct of members of government unless the

basis for a criminal charge exists.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd just like to say a couple of words. The answer

to the question is obviously of course I am, I did this morning under the Securities

Act . It's not into the conduct of people, but it's into something that's raised.

I administer my department.

What I do resent, Mr. Chairman, is this reference — and

particularly from that Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound,

who is a respected barrister — of the constant hint that this

is the Sommers case, that there's a criminal charge at the end

of the road.

He doesn't state what the criminal charge is. He doesn't

link the thing to the Sommers case. In the Sommers case there

was sworn evidence brought an Attorney-General that there had

been bribery, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

And anybody in this office who receives that kind of evidence

would immediately turn it over to the police authorities for

investigation and prosecution. No question about that.

But that a member of the bar such as that Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound should have this constant echo and pick it

up from the Member for Victoria, that there's a relationship

here between this and the Sommers situation is absolutely

disgraceful and I say contemptible. He should apologize, but he

won't. But I say it is disgraceful innuendo.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I have no apology to make

for what I said, because I said nothing that should be

offensive to any Member of this House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, you're just a dancing man, dancing

around it, that's all, eh?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now the Hon. Attorney-General is making

remarks which lead me to wonder whether I shouldn't call upon

him to apologize because he is casting aspersions on the

motives by which I stand in this House. And I ask the

Attorney-General seriously again, I say to him quite clearly

that based upon the evidence, based upon material tabled in

this House, the arguments that have been raised, there is no

basis for a criminal charge against any Member of the

government. That's my considered opinion.

But what I'm asking the Attorney-General, and I ask him

again and for the last time, are you telling us that if

questions are raised with respect to the impropriety or

propriety of the conduct of a cabinet Minister, the

Attorney-General has no responsibility unless and until a body

of evidence can be placed before him upon which criminal

charges can be counted? Is that his responsibility?

MR. GIBSON: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I have to

respond first of all briefly to the words of the Premier who

expressed concern that there had been a motion to reduce by $1

the vote of every

[ Page 1246 ]

single Minister before the House to date. He shouldn't be

surprised because it's all on the same case. It's all part of

the same fabric. They've all deserved it, Mr. Chairman. There's

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who graduated

from the Rose Mary Wood's School of Memory Training.

(Laughter.) Then there was the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Member that the amendment

is on the Attorney-General's estimates, not the Minister of

Agriculture.

MR. GIBSON: I was talking about....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't let him reply.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier spoke precisely on this point, and I

presume was concerned about the fact that there was a move to

reduce his own salary as well, and he's very much a part of

this case, and the accusations that stand against him in this

House. Now the Attorney-General just expressed concern over

references which have been made to this case and the Sommers

case. I suggest to the Attorney-General, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that the way is open to him to remove this comparison

today by appointing an inquiry. The inquiry that has been

demanded by speaker after speaker in this House.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Put up your

seat!

MR. GIBSON: There's been some seats put up, Mr. Member,

through you, Mr. Chairman, put up your own.

MR. CUMMINGS: Put up or shut up, put up your seat!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Dealing with the amendment, the Member

for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Surely he has this

remedy open to him. That is the sum and substance of what I

have to suggest at this point, Mr. Chairman, the case has been

very, very well made. That there has been backroom pressure by

the Premier, that there has been political favouritism to the

friends of the government, and that there has been a cover-up

by the Premier and the government and their sworn affidavits.

If that doesn't make a case for the Attorney-General having an

inquiry, I don't know what does.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier a few minutes ago

launched into a pretty vicious attack on the leader of the

Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson)...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on!

MR. McGEER: ...because he moved a motion of non-confidence

in the Attorney-General on a pretty obvious matter of

principle, and that matter of principle is whether there should

be one law for Sy Kovachich and another law for everyone else.

The leader of the Liberal Party has taken what I would consider

to be a pretty time-honoured position, one law for

everyone.

The Premier accused the leader of the Liberal Party of

bringing this legislative chamber into disrepute. Mr. Chairman,

it wasn't the leader of the Liberal Party that used

unforgivable language to a member of the press. The leader of

the Liberal Party has been perfectly consistent in the position

he has taken throughout this whole unfortunate affair. He has

shown he believed the affidavits of four honourable British

Columbia citizens who swore to the truth of the statements they

made before judiciary officials in this province.

He has further said he is prepared to personally stake his

seat on the veracity of those men, and not that of the Premier,

before an impartial judicial inquiry. That's backing up your

position. That's placing the honour of this Legislative

Assembly above all else, and it's showing a respect for the law

and the processes of law, but it's unfortunately been totally

absent in the actions of a number of Ministers of the Crown

including the Premier.

He hasn't resorted to gutter-sniping, to vulgar language in

the corridors directed to people who only reported honestly

what went on in this chamber. Now, Mr. Chairman, we do need

some dignity in this chamber. We do need some respect for the

law. We do need to get to the bottom of an issue where quite

conflicting statements have been made...

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): We've been at the bottom for

two weeks.

MR. McGEER: ...between people that have sworn affidavits

and Ministers of the Crown who presented rather different

stories under the protective rules that apply to this

assembly.

Of course, the Attorney-General's conduct must be

challenged. How can the Attorney-General stand in this assembly

and tell us everyone is equal under the law? How can he say

that the treatment accorded Sy Kovachich is the same as the

treatment afforded other citizens of British Columbia? How can

he ignore the sworn testimony of Mr. Brunsdon and the others

who have been associated with the Egg Marketing Board and the

Broiler Marketing Board?

How can he reconcile that with the statements of the

Minister of Agriculture who conveniently forgot

[ Page 1247 ]

all about it during his estimates, but remembered very

clearly last night when he called a press conference to produce

a letter that he himself had written? A letter that stated

quite openly that there had been an agreement between the

Premier and Mr. Sy Kovachich, something which the Premier

himself denied only last night.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was an agreement to go to the lawyers.

I never denied that.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order! I want to raise with the Member

that you're being repetitive. You're repeating arguments that

have been argued already today.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you no matter

what your ruling is these arguments aren't going to be

forgotten because they show up completely the way the Minister

of Agriculture and the Premier have behaved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I would bring to the