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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 837 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Labour Code of British Columbia Act

(Bill 67).

Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading — 837

Oral Questions

Meeting scheduled on boxcar shortage.

Mr. Chabot —

Low-cost housing project in Victoria Highlands district.

Mr. Wallace — 838

Discrimination against housewives under Autoplan

regulations.

Ms. Brown — 838

Need for income subsidy assistance for hog producers.

Mrs. Jordan — 838

Surcharges on autobody shops.

Mr. Curtis — 839

Negotiations with Ottawa re pipeline through B.C.

Mr. Phillips — 839

Pollution control programmes in pulp mill operations.

Mr. Curtis — 840

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

Mr. Morrison — 840

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 843

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 844

Privilege Use of unparliamentary language.

Mr. Chairman — 846

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 846

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 846

Mr. Speaker — 846

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 846

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates Hon. Mr. Barrett

— 847

Mr. Gibson — 847

Mrs. Jordan — 849

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 852

Mr. Nunweiler — 852

Mr. McClelland — 854

Division — 855

Mr. McGeer — 855

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 856

Mr. Wallace — 857

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 858

Mr. Gardom — 859

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 862

Mr. Bennett — 863

Mr. L.A. Williams — 863

Mr. Lewis — 866

Mr. McClelland — 867

Mr. McGeer — 869

Hon. R.A. Williams — 870

Mr. Gibson — 870

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 871

Report Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. 1st

report — 873

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker,

it's my pleasure this afternoon to welcome to the gallery a group of students

from an outstanding independent, or private, school in my constituency with

a long history in that constituency. I am referring to the students in the gallery

from Queen Margaret's School in the City of Duncan, and I would ask the House

to welcome them.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today we have 58 people from New Westminster. Up until

recently they have been coming over on an annual basis with an

eye to possibly moving the parliament buildings to New

Westminster. They've decided against that, however, and I would

like everybody here to welcome the people from New Westminster

for their visit today.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, there are

27 students in the gallery that I want to welcome and have the

House greet. These 27 students are attending a United Nations

seminar sponsored by the United Nations Association in

Vancouver. The students come from many parts of the province,

so Members should be interested in that point — that many of

their areas are represented by these students.

They're in Victoria to gain some background knowledge as

some will be proceeding to Ottawa and some to New York. They

are accompanied by Lydia Sayle, the executive secretary of the

United Nations Association in Vancouver. They are being hosted

while in the capital city by the Victoria

chapter of the United

Nations. I hope the House will greet these 27 splendid young

people.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the House to join me in welcoming today some students from

Winton School of the distant city of Prince George.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

about these students that represent the Junior United Nations, it's not very

often that I get an opportunity to welcome students from my area, since they're

down near Alberta. In the area where some are even wanting to go to Alberta.

But, I'd like you to give an extra welcome to those students — Miss Lois Dellert,

Robert Hogan and Judy Driver from Kimberley who are on this delegation.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, this is

another rare occasion when I have an opportunity to welcome

somebody from the great Peace River. I would like the House to

join me in welcoming Alderman Fred Newby and his wife from

Dawson Creek.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, also in

the group of UN students that are visiting the House today we

have three from the City of Revelstoke: Michael Breck, Larry

Kerr and John Netzel. I would like a special greeting to go to

those students today.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): I would like to

welcome the remaining two people who have not yet been

welcomed. (Laughter.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to table the first report of the task

force on Crown timber disposal. The report is intituled Crown Charges for Early

Timber Rights, Royalties and Other Levies for Harvesting Rights on Timber Leases,

Licences and Berths in British Columbia. It is an exciting, excellent document.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

On a motion by Mr. Chabot, Bill 67,

An Act to Amend the

Labour Code of British Columbia 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.

Oral questions.

MEETING SCHEDULED

ON BOXCAR SHORTAGE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources, in view of his statement yesterday

that he will not meet with the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines

because he felt it would breach the privilege of this House:

this morning the Premier discussed quite thoroughly the

provisions of the new Mineral Royalties Act on a

hotline. I am wondering, in view of the fact that it has been

discussed outside the House, whether the Minister would

reconsider and meet with the people of the B.C.-Yukon Chamber

of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In answer to that question,

[ Page 838 ]

we are meeting with them next week. And what the Premier

does is what the Premier does; but what I do is what I do.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, who earlier on said

the Minister of Mines would be available to meet with any major

group: there will be 1,500 people at this meeting next Monday.

I would ask the Premier if he wouldn't consider that the kind

of major group that perhaps the Minister should be at.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The Minister has already stated

that we will be meeting as a cabinet with the representatives

of the mining industry next week.

LOW-COST HOUSING PROJECT

IN VICTORIA HIGHLANDS DISTRICT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Minister of Housing if plans have been finalized for a large,

low-cost housing project in the Highlands district of greater

Victoria? If so, when will they be announced?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'm sorry, would the

Member please repeat the question?

MR. WALLACE: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I just would like to

know for the people of this area if plans have been finalized

for a large low-cost housing programme in the Highlands

district of greater Victoria. If so, when are the plans to be

announced?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, there are no plans for the method

under which housing development would take place. The Capital

Regional Board has been acquiring some lands in that area, and

it is looked upon as a fairly long-term future landbanking

project. When a suitable number of lands can be assembled we

will then proceed with servicing.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker: I take him to say

that there is no final plan as to the total type of housing or

as to whether it will only be low-cost or otherwise. That

decision, I take it, has not been made.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That is correct.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSEWIVES

UNDER AUTOPLAN REGULATIONS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed

to the Minister of Transport and Communications, and it has to do with ICBC.

I'm wondering if he could explain to me why it is that under

the disability coverage offered, men are allowed disability for

104 weeks in case of an accident and housewives are allowed the

coverage for only 26 weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on! Discrimination.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, the present Autoplan provisions on

no-fault accident benefits are exactly the same as they were

under the laws of this province operated by the private

insurance companies. It applies the same as federal operations

such as unemployment insurance and other social functions of

that nature. That doesn't mean it's correct.

MR. WALLACE: Change it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm certainly going to take a look at it.

I want to inform you that we took the existing provisions and

for our first run we took it as it was.

MR. WALLACE: How long is he going to look at it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I realize that as it was the private

insurance companies had it that way. I can assure the Member

we're taking a very serious look at every aspect of the rather

limited no-fault benefits that have been provided.

NEED FOR INCOME SUBSIDY

ASSISTANCE FOR HOG PRODUCERS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture and ask

him: in light of the fact that hog prices have fallen from

approximately $54 a hundredweight on November 27 to

approximately $43 yesterday, which is resulting in an average

loss per animal in cost of production of between $20 and $30,

will the Minister consider putting the income subsidy

assistance negotiations on an accelerated and emergency

basis?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

reported earlier that one of the groups we are talking to are —

not a hog marketing commission as there isn't one — but we are

talking to the hog producers about the income stabilization

programme for them. We're not ready to announce any details

yet.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: is the Minister not aware

of the acute situation that

[ Page

839 ]

exists in British Columbia today and that there are hog

producers in this province, in light of this tremendous

decrease in return over the last two months, who will be out of

business today and tomorrow? Will he not give any assurance to

this House and to them that the programme will go in effect and

be retroactive so that they can go to their banks and receive

some interim financing to bail them out at this time?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, yes I am aware. As far as any

emergency programme, I have had no representations from any of

the producers for an emergency programme. They want to get in

on the regular programme.

SURCHARGES ON AUTOBODY SHOPS

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

Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications, if he

can still hear me: in view of the surcharges which are

apparently being levied by automotive body shops up Island, in

Prince George and in the Quesnel area, to name at least a few,

does the Minister intend to amend his statement to the House of

February 27 last, where he indicated that all was serene,

settled and calm and that an agreement had been reached with

the ARA and its autobody shop members?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I was advised of this last night and this

morning I've been advised by the general manager that he's been

in touch with Mr. Kinnaird. Mr. Kinnaird has promised to get

back to us by noon tomorrow.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, that

doesn't really answer the question. This was a discussion

between, as I understand it, ICBC and the executives of ARA.

Does the Minister know when and if this settlement proposal is

going to be voted on by the ARA membership at large?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have no knowledge of how the ARA

operates or what the rules and regulations are. It's an

association composed of automotive retail individuals, and I

certainly don't run their business.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think the Minister can be responsible

for outside organizations.

MR. CURTIS: That's not the point, Mr. Speaker, with respect.

Would the Minister agree that this was a tentative agreement

reached with the ARA executive to be ratified at a later date

by the membership?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I was informed that agreement had been reached

with the negotiating committee for ARA, and that's the information I conveyed

to you. As I told you, Mr. Kinnaird has promised to get back to us by noon tomorrow.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH OTTAWA

RE PIPELINE THROUGH B.C.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to address my question to the

Premier and Minister of Finance: in view of the fact that

within two weeks separate applications will be tabled in both

Ottawa and Washington for a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline — one to go across the State of Alaska and one to go in a

southerly direction through the Province of British Columbia —

have there been any negotiations between the Province of

British Columbia and Ottawa with regard to this pipeline going

through the Province of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: This is a matter for the Minister concerned or

for another Minister?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I thought maybe I'd ask the Premier

because he would be the one who would probably be carrying out

negotiations.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If I might comment, the Member's

question is not entirely clear to me, Mr. Speaker, other than....

MR. PHILLIPS: It's for the Premier.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, on behalf of the Hon. Premier....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I may point out that I've

already indicated that I can't see how that's within the

functions of the Premier's office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right. I'll be quite willing to have

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources or the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) in charge of energy.

What I'm concerned about is that this is a multi-billion

dollar pipeline, proposals of which will be made both in Ottawa

and in Washington. What I am concerned about is: is the

Province of British Columbia being informed? Have they had any

dealings with Ottawa? Evidently our Prime Minister and our

Minister of energy, Mr. Macdonald, has said he is in favour of

this Canadian pipeline. The proposal is that it cut through the

centre of British Columbia and link up with the B.C.–Montana

border. I would like to know if negotiations are going on,

because it involves the ecology, it involves billions of

dollars worth of assessments, extra taxes, employment while

it's being built....

[ Page 840 ]

MR. SPEAKER: That's quite a speech.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I might say that the staff

of the environment and land use secretariat have reviewed some

of these questions, but there have not been direct discussions

with Ottawa. We are aware of some of the proposals.

If I might, Mr. Speaker, I have answers to two questions

that I took as notice some time ago.

One is with respect to Ocean Falls and the sale of newsprint

to The Victoria Express . The answer is no, there have

not been sales between the Ocean Falls corporation and The

Victoria Express .

With respect to the Canadian Cellulose sulphite mill at

Prince Rupert, I would advise that the Pollution Control Board

have an application for permits or effluent disposal from the

Can-Cel operations at Prince Rupert. The application and

meetings with mill management discloses the following programme

for the sulphite mills:

(

a) the mill intends converting from dissolving grade to

paper grade pulp during 1974-75, and this will reduce waste

lost from the bleach plant machine room area by over 35 per

cent;

(

b) the effluent from the pulping and red liquor washer area

will continue to discharge by pipeline overland to Chatham

Sound with improvements for dispersal slated for 1974;

(

c) by 1976 mill management will have decided whether to

(1) shut down the sulphite operations; or (2) continue with the

existing mill operations. Under option (2) the mill proposes to

provide the necessary recovery and all other necessary internal

and external treatment to meet level (

b) of the Pollution

Control Board objectives by the end of 1979. The pollution

control branch has requested further details on the second

option. The above programme to meet level (

b) is within the

intent of the Pollution Control Board objectives for the

planning and programme of an existing operation.

I think that covers it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary from the original questioner —

was it the Member for Saanich?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I see. We'll deal with the original

question and then supplementary on the other answers.

MR. PHILLIPS: What I would like to know is: in view of the

magnitude of this project, has it been discussed and has

British Columbia taken a position either of being for this

gigantic programme or against it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of cabinet or government position

with respect to the pipeline itself. The work that has been done by the staff

to date is with respect to the specifics of location as it might affect British

Columbia directly.

MR. PHILLIPS: One more supplementary. This is a very large

project, Mr. Speaker. Would you at some time take a question

from me as notice? Would you inform the House as to what

British Columbia's position is going to be on this project, and

would you get together with Ottawa and see whether it's going

to be good for the province, or not good for the province?

Because negotiations are going to go. The problem is, Mr.

Speaker, that if this pipeline doesn't come through Canada then

the gas fields of northern Canada will not be developed to the

advantage of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! the Hon. Member takes up the

time of other questioners.

POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMMES

IN PULP MILL OPERATIONS

MR. CURTIS: In response to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources' answer on the Prince Rupert situation, would

he be able to tell the House if that is a comparable time

schedule, as has been applied against the Crown Zellerbach

operation at Port Alice?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's actually the Rayonier, IT&T

operation at Port Alice, but I might add that in that regard

it's a one-year difference. The one year additional time

requested by Canadian Cellulose as opposed to the Rayonier

operation is reasonable in that the pulping red liquor effluent

carrying approximately 75 per cent of the oxygen-demanding

waste discharges overland to Chatham Sound, which is an

unconfined body of water and therefore has a much higher

flushing capacity compared to Neroutsos Inlet near Port

Alice.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, right from the beginning

our party has questioned the excessive use of government and order-in-council

appointments. We've never been very satisfied with

[ Page

841 ]

this position that this government has chosen to use their

influence for positions in high monetary gain. It's not good

enough for the Premier of this province to brush aside the

appointments yesterday to the boards of variance and the courts

of revision, to the hospital boards and the college councils,

and the like, as being of no significance.

H ON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): That's

what he was talking about.

MR. MORRISON: He said that that really wasn't important.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): No. I said it was always done the

same way.

MR. MORRISON: As the Premier has done with the questions of

trust and integrity in respect to the egg-and-chicken war, so

has he done in terms of trying to brush aside the patronage

machine which he is responsible for establishing in British

Columbia. He's doing that every day.

The real issue on the marketing boards is one of trust and

of integrity in government. That is the issue that we have been

pursuing for the last few days.

The issue of order-in-council appointments is one of

influence and power based on the patronage system. The Premier

very fondly recalls the number of appointments through the

Social Credit years, which he would question in terms of

patronage. But, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to challenge him to find

a list of the first two years, and I'm sure that if he could.... (Laughter.) I'm going to challenge him to find a list of

patronage in the first two years of the former government. I'm

sure he can't find a list that you could count on the fingers

of one hand. Let's face the issue squarely.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) read a list

of 300 names of order-in-council appointments which quickly

followed upon the heels of the election of this government. I'm

sure this Premier does not wish to explain a number of

appointments to boards of variance of known NDP supporters. I'm

sure he does not wish to explain the fact there have been 99

changes to courts of revision, and many of new appointments are

known NDP card members.

Perhaps he does not wish to explain the transparent way in

which community social service councils are being used by the

NDP as instruments of influence and power. But this government

through patronage and order-in-council appointments is taking a

stranglehold on the civil service itself, the college councils

of British Columbia, the hospital boards of British Columbia,

the assessment appeal procedures of British Columbia, the

external and powerful boards established in this province by order-in-council, the

Crown corporations of this province, task forces, think tanks,

et cetera used for the advice by this government and the

community planning procedures of this province and the land

systems in this province. Nowhere do we see any evidence that

it's anything other than straight political patronage.

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

relate his remarks to the vote before us — that is, the

administrative responsibilities of the Premier or the Minister

of Finance. Also, I would request that he not read his

speech.

MR. MORRISON: I'm not reading it. I want to make sure my

points are clear, and I am relating it exactly to the point

where I believe it belongs.

He's very fond of saying these appointments will live and

die with this government, but that's missing the point too. In

a patronage-free society, those people and those appointments

should be made on merit alone. This new government may find

that these people are very valuable servants to this province,

and so they should be, or they should not be appointed in the

very first place. But even here, the Premier is incapable of

facing the truth. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)

appointed Harthurn as his executive assistant, and that

particular friend of the government used that first

order-in-council as an effective way of jumping directly into a

highly paid civil service job within that department — a job

which, incidentally, pays $20,724.

I think it would be difficult to find another individual in

British Columbia who has less qualifications for his position

in that corporation. There are dedicated and effective civil

servants that the previous government left within the

Department of Mines. This government may talk about these

people living and dying with the government, but when they say

that, dozens of these people may indeed be very effective

people. Perhaps they should be kept. And they should have the

right not to have their appointments described by the Minister

of this government as patronage appointments. The government

makes it very clear when it talks about living and dying with

this government that the key to their appointments was, indeed,

patronage and that the basic criterion for their appointments

was their NDP affiliation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's nonsense.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Who wrote that speech?

MR. MORRISON: I did.

[ Page 842 ]

Even the coalition government in its latter years was not so

guilty of patronage as this government has been.

I'd like you to look at some of these recognized

card-carrying members. Yesterday you had a list of 300. Let me

just read one or two out of the list today: Alexander McLellan

in the Agriculture department.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): He's the personal

assistant to a Minister.

MR. MORRISON: He's a friend of the Minister. That's the

point I'm making.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. First Member for

Victoria has the floor.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Peterson had his personal assistant.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Loffmark had his too,

Baby!

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: How about A.J. Gargrave? How about Ray Haines?

How about Joe Hanson, Rhodes, Roland, Criddle, Squire, Prittie,

Barsby, Lauk — a whole list of them. Their prices, their wages,

their former appointments.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How much does Ray Haines get?

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: I suppose the Premier's going to tell me that

those people were appointed on their merit alone.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How much does Ray Haines get?

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: The word of the Premier is already badly enough tarnished,

as one shoe after another is dropped. Every day in this House we get another

bombshell. The people of this province should be warned that this government

is deliberately setting itself on a course where the entire machinery of the

government, the entire advisory apparatus of this government goes with this

government with influence and with power. There is as much government in real

terms outside this Legislature now as there is within these four walls.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) proudly

stated yesterday that if he had to choose between a sense of

duty to the people, and a sense of following the party line, he

would choose to be dictated by the party line.

I would remind the Members opposite, Mr. Chairman, that once

elected they have the responsibility to govern for all the

people of British Columbia, not just for the NDP supporters.

The one way to destroy that trust, to destroy the confidence

and integrity of the government, is to deliberately set out on

a patronage system. Certainly over time there will be merit

found among the people who have all political persuasions.

That's true of any civil servants, but that's what makes them

free men within the government structure.

However, the real issue with this government now is whether

or not their word can be trusted, and their system of

government trusted, to bring the people of this province

effective, open and even-handed government.

The marketing board situation has placed the trust factor of

this government squarely on the line. The abuses of this

government have put the integrity of this government squarely

on the line. Mr. Chairman, that's the reason why this session

has developed into a session where, as the official opposition,

we've asked for open inquiry after open inquiry. We've asked

for facts and what have we got?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Totally negative opposition. Totally

negative.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You're stuck in your

own glue.

MR. MORRISON: You don't want to answer. We've had nothing in

answer from either of the two Ministers whose estimates are

before this House at this point. Mr. Chairman, it's time that

the government opposite realized that the opposition has asked

these questions so that the air can be cleared and that the

real issues of trust and integrity in government could be put

before the people of this province.

Mr. Chairman, we have had so far in this province questions

on why stock trading was not suspended when this government

started dealing in private corporations. We've had open charges

on the streets of Vanderhoof by the elected mayor that

blackmail was a factor in the Plateau Mills deal.

We've had open questions about unnatural trading patterns on Columbia Cellulose.

We've had questions on the radio and in this House on the background of taking

over Dunhill. We've had citizens, with nothing to gain personally, making sworn

charges that this Premier used physical threats during his interference

[ Page

843 ]

with the marketing board.

We've had open charges in this House by the leader of the

Liberal Party that two Ministers of this government have lied

to this House. Can't the government now see that the real issue

is not any narrow concern with any of these situations?

The real issue is the way that this government has used and

abused power. Can't the government now see that the people are

not questioning this government on any narrow political

partisan basis?

Doesn't the government understand that without trust and

integrity in government being clearly established, the very

existence of a free parliament is at stake?

HON. MR. COCKE: Tell Dan he can do better than that.

MR. MORRISON: The official opposition wants it clearly on

the record that these urgent requests for full inquiries on all

these fronts discussed in recent days cannot be brushed aside

by any arm waving. The issue is truth. The issue is integrity.

The issue is the abuse of power, and...

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

dollars.

MR. MORRISON: ...as the leader of this government, Mr.

Premier, you should not duck these issues any longer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the official

opposition presented to this House a list of misinformation in

terms of orders-in-council, and after being corrected, they

walk right back into the same bag again — for what reason, I

don't know.

I think it should be interesting to note, before I go into a

second part of my answer, first of all, that the material had

to be prepared for the official opposition by a research

officer. The research officer is appointed by order-in-council,

because it is essentially a political appointment. The

order-in-council named by the official opposition included one

Dan J. Campbell and Grace McCarthy.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Who are they?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now the whole idea of orders-in-council,

and that approach to order-in-council appointment — as well as

with the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party — is to have

someone who is tuned in to that particular party's approach,

philosophy and goals. Otherwise, there's no need to hire such a

person.

In the past in British Columbia we had Ministers allowed to

hire staff outside of the civil service — namely, P.A. Gaglardi

and the Businessmen's Alliance. We made it very clear that the time-honoured

British tradition of hiring through order-in-council applied to

Deputy Ministers. Two of those were named yesterday by the

speaker, leaving the impression that somehow they were

NDPers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, are you saying, Madam — and I hope

you apologize to the Deputy Minister of Travel Industry — that

he was a political appointment? His name was read yesterday and

he was on staff for over 25 years. When I asked him.....

AN HON. MEMBER: 40 years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I would hope that you would

certainly...40 years, Mr. Colby's service.

Then on top of that, listed in the names yesterday, as I had

to point out yesterday, was a Mr. George Brodie with 33 years

service — 33 years government service — a government agent in

Nelson, and appointed to a hospital board.

MR. PHILLIPS: Quit fogging the issue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Quit fogging the issue?

Mr. Chairman, considering the validity of their research,

they should fire their order-in-council appointment and find

someone who can do it sensibly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Acts we inherited from the former

administration included the hospital boards, boards of

variance, police commissions, courts of revisions, Deputy

Ministers. We have followed every single Act that the former

government followed.

We have named order-in-council assistants to the Ministers,

and I said clearly at the outset that those would be appointed

by the Minister and they would fall with the Minister. They

would not be buried in the civil service to be protected by the

Civil Service Act .

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: They were straight political appointments,

just as your assistants are political appointments in every

other party, and that is the way it should be, Mr. Chairman.

That's the way it should be.

The British system functions on the basis of the Minister

being able by order-in-council to appoint his Deputy. We have

followed the tradition, and we hope that whoever succeeds us

will follow the same

[ Page 844 ]

tradition and not go back to the kind of games that were

played by that group over there when they were in power.

Mr. Chairman, the greatest variance from civil service

hirings was the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, when the

former Minister of Human Resources, or Welfare, or whatever he

was known as — a high-flyer, or whatever else he was known as

at that time — was hiring out of his own department and

bypassing the Civil Service.

Aside from the order-in-council that we are required to use

by legislation, and aside from the order-in-council appointment

that we have done in terms of Ministerial assistants, we have

used the civil servants and the civil service completely. And

it is a far better record than the former government ever had,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, we've had an

interesting intervention from the Premier of the Province. He

talked about how the British system functioned. He talked about

the way it should be. He talked about the correctness, or

otherwise, of using orders-in-council. That is precisely the

subject I would like to continue talking about.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, when I made an intervention in this

debate on the estimates of the Premier, apparently my remarks

were misunderstood, or not heard. With your permission, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to touch on some of these again.

First, on the question of the way it should be, on the

question of truth in government, on the question of how the

British system functions — to quote the Premier's words of a

few seconds ago — there is an issue, a real issue, of truth in

government. This is an issue which cannot be ignored by

ignoring the charges made, the claims made, or the affidavits

sworn. It's fundamental to the British parliamentary system

that things like this be cleared up.

Now we have attempted over the past few weeks, my colleagues

and I, to clear this matter up. We have attempted by

questioning the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich) during the question period. We have attempted,

during the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, to

question him again.

We want to know, Mr. Chairman, where the truth is and where

the lack of truth is in affidavits sworn by citizens of British

Columbia, former members of the Egg Marketing Board and members

of the Broiler Marketing Board. We want to know where the truth

lies because it's fundamental to the British parliamentary

system, to again quote the Premier, "for matters such as this

to be cleared up."

We questioned the Minister in his estimates. At first he

claimed amnesia. At first he claimed it was an unimportant

question which he was not interested in trying to remember, and

his quotes are on the record.

We questioned him over days, and his memory improved slightly but not very

much.

But there was one thing I would like to mention, because the

issue here was the accuracy of impressions conveyed and

statements made about meetings. These meetings did not just

have two people present, Mr. Chairman. They did not just have

present the Minister of Agriculture, the Premier and the people

who swore the affidavits. Both these meetings had substantial

numbers of civil servants present, and they were in a position

to clear up the record.

They were in the position, had they been questioned by the

Minister of Agriculture, to have come forward with statements

which would have indicated where the truth lay and where the

falsehood lay.

Yet in the last day of the estimates of the Minister of

Agriculture, he made a quote which I'd like to repeat at this

time. He stated, "My Deputy has not asked me whether he should,

or should not say anything to the press. If he were to ask me I

would advise him it would probably be in his own interests" —

mark my words, Mr. Chairman — "in his own interests and in the

interest of the industry as a whole if he declined to comment

on what is obviously a political attempt to bring disfavour on

the Minister of Agriculture."

Those were the people who had the opportunity of clearing up

the records. Those were the people who were present at these

meetings, were sitting next to the Minister during his

estimates, and could well have shed light on what actually

transpired.

We were interested that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich) did not ask these people for their views, that he

indeed suggested to them, as I have indicated to you in that

quote "they had better not give their views."

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

his remarks to the Premier's estimates?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Because if the civil

servants I am talking of had been permitted to speak, or even

encouraged to speak, it would have been possible to clear the

name of the Premier. That is the issue we are discussing, Mr.

Chairman. That is the issue.

There were a number of questions which we felt had to be

answered. We wanted to know the accuracy of these affidavits

because they are sworn affidavits. They are statements, which

if incorrect, would lead these people to be prosecuted for

perjury.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aw, ridiculous!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You couldn't prosecute a fly!

[ Page

845 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: "False statements under oath cannot be

prosecuted," says the Attorney-General. Your estimates come up next,

Mr. Attorney-General, and we are going to look forward to you letting

out most of the people now in British Columbia jails on the strength of

affidavits?

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

his remarks to vote 2?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the fact is: civil servants

were involved in these affidavits. Their names come up

frequently. Civil servants carried messages back and forward.

Civil servants were present. Civil servants must have heard

what apparently the Minister of Agriculture could not hear,

what apparently members of the Egg Marketing Board and Broiler

board did hear.

So we have a situation in which the civil service were told:

"It is not in your interests to speak out."

We in this party have asked for a judicial inquiry. I have

not checked to find out how many times we have asked, but I

imagine a dozen, perhaps 15 times, would be a conservative

rather than a generous estimate. The fact is: there has been no

judicial inquiry or any suggestion we are going to get the

judicial inquiry. Why not? Why not have a man, a supreme court

justice, independent of politics, independent of partisan

debate in this Legislature, call before him the people who were

present at these meetings; put them on oath and say:

"Gentlemen, what is your recollection? Where does the truth

lie?" Why not have the name of the Premier cleared if indeed he

has been libeled, or have the names of these people who swore

these affidavits cleared, because I am sure that the statements

of the Minister of Agriculture on the weekend constituted libel

of them.

Why not have an independent, non-partisan inquiry? Time

after time after time this was denied to us. There are

questions, questions that we cannot avoid, and these affidavits

raised them. Questions such as: Did the Premier tell Mr.

Brunsdon that there would not be any court case against Mr. Sy

Kovachich? Did the Premier say charges against Mr. Kovachich

must be substantially reduced? Did the Premier indicate to Mr.

Brunsdon that the Kovachich order was not to be a precedent,

and that if any other producers got out of line, they were to

be stepped on? Did the Premier inform the board it had to draft

a new agreement with Kovachich that very day? Did he or did he

not? Was the Premier aware of Kovachich's affiliation?

We would like to know whether the Premier informed Mr. Morgan, who

was present at the meeting, that in response to his questions as to

what assurances the board would have that Mr. Kovachich would abide by

the dictated agreement that — and here is the quote of the Premier as

relayed by affidavit: "...if he does not abide by his part of the

agreement, I will kick the crap out of him, and if the egg board does

not abide by their part of the agreement, I will kick the crap out of

you." Was this said at that meeting?

Did the Premier say to Mr. Brunsdon at the meeting: "If

anything is said outside of this office, I will deny every word

I said." Did he or did he not make that statement? A direct

promise. A promise to lie. A promise which we'll see whether it

has been kept or not; whether a judicial inquiry will see

whether it's been kept or not.

These are real questions, Mr. Chairman, and we have raised

them in the Legislature time after time in the last two weeks —

the real questions that we have tried to have answered by civil

servants, by the Minister of Agriculture, by a public inquiry,

a judicial inquiry.

Now, the Premier has said yesterday: "Tell the whole truth."

Today he says, "We've got to make sure that the British system

functions. This is the way it should be." Well, the way it

should be is to clear up the issue as to whether or not these

men swore affidavits on which they have perjured themselves or

whether, indeed, the Premier has told the truth.

Mr. Chairman, two days ago I met in my office with Mr.

Brunsdon, the former head of the egg board. That was the first

and, indeed, the only time I have ever met the man. My only

other contact with anybody involved with these affidavits was a

phone call to his wife, a brief phone call, setting up that

meeting in my office. I was convinced of one thing after my

conversation with Mr. Brunsdon. That is: Brunsdon is an honest

man; Brunsdon has been telling the truth.

The situation, therefore, that I am faced with is this: I

cannot on the one hand believe Brunsdon, and on the other

believe both the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich). That is not a minor variation of recollection;

this is a substantially different story as to what happened. It

is not possible for both, or I should say all three, to be

right.

We have asked, and I ask again, for a judicial inquiry to

get to the bottom of this — an impartial inquiry outside the

confines of politics. I think were this done, some of the

difficulties that have been faced in the past — in the Gaglardi

affair or the Strachan affair — would not recur.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You know that was a phony political

thing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in the light of my

inability to believe both Brunsdon and the Premier and the

Minister of Agriculture, I am led to one conclusion. The

conclusion is this: the Premier

[ Page 846 ]

and the Minister of Agriculture have lied...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...have deliberately lied in this House.

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

withdraw.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm the offended one....

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

Second Member for Victoria to rise and withdraw his remark

stating the Premier has lied.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman. I'm the offended authority.

I have the right to ask the withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't fight over it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Second Member I have

requested that you withdraw the statement that the Premier

lied, or that the Minister of Agriculture lied.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I cannot withdraw a

statement which I believe to be accurate. And the statement is:

the Premier lied to this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would read to you standing

order 40(2): "No Member shall use offensive words against any

Member of this House." Therefore, I order the Second Member for

Victoria to withdraw his remark.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Premier state his point

of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is it not right, Mr. Chairman, that the

rule is that the offended party has the right to ask for

withdrawal?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): You don't even know

the rules!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're trying to tell me I don't know the rules?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, any Hon. Member has this right, but the

Chairman has the duty to impose the rules of this House, so I

would order the Hon. Second Member for Victoria to withdraw the

statement that the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture lied

to this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, for the third time today,

and the fifth time in the last two days, I claim the Premier

and the Minister of Agriculture have lied to this assembly in

the affair of the Egg Marketing Board.

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

he is refusing to obey the order of the Chair?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That would be a logical assumption, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as it is clear.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Straight smear. Straight innuendo. Your

own statement today was "accuracy of impressions." That was

your own words today. Is that the best you can do? That is

pretty poor.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply, the

Hon. Second Member for Victoria stated that the Premier and

Minister of Agriculture lied to this House. Upon requesting

that he withdraw these words, he refused. When I ordered him to

withdraw, he also refused.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, the duty

is on the Speaker to preserve the dignity of the House and the

authority of the Chair, under standing orders 19 and 20.

Regretfully, I must again ask the Hon. Member if he will

withdraw the remarks, but before doing so, were the remarks

passed in the heat of a debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: What difference does it make?

MR. SPEAKER: It makes considerable difference under standing

orders 19 and 20. Everybody errs, you know, but we are all able

to progress.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that over

the last 10 days, upon the consistent refusal of the government

to order a judicial inquiry, there have been heated moments on

this side....

[ Page

847 ]

MR. SPEAKER: But not today?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that both

today and yesterday I said it on careful reflection.

MR. SPEAKER: I see. And I must now order you, according to

Standing Orders , to withdraw the remarks that you've

made.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to withdraw

the remarks if a judicial inquiry is established so we can get

the truth of this. Otherwise under no circumstances will I

withdraw those remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I have no other course open but to ask you

to leave the chamber.

That, of course, is for the rest of the sitting.

AN HON. MEMBER: The rest of the session?

MR. SPEAKER: I said the rest of the sitting.

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

On vote 2.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important,

since I didn't have the opportunity to raise the question of

withdrawal, to reflect on the accuracy of statements. That was

a statement made by the Member — accuracy of impressions. I

just want to read into the record page 20 of the Garrish report

and let the matter rest there.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have a right to my place

in this House without the yelling and the smears of the

opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Smokescreen!

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

withdraw the word "smears" as applied to the words of the

opposition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the

Garrish report....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Premier to

withdraw the implication that there was smearing from the

opposition as he stands in his place.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that there was an impression of smearing from the

opposition. It was no impression at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the Hon. Premier to....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He wants to be thrown

out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Premier continue?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to quote from

page 20 the relevant

section of the Garrish report related to

this whole issue that I think is germane to every step that has

been taken, both by the opposition and by others.

"On the other hand, if the present situation is allowed to

remain" — that is, with the Egg Marketing Board — "inevitably

the board policies will reflect the views and the wishes of the

majority of the producers presently concentrated in the lower

mainland. If a change is to be brought about, it will certainly

have to be as a result of a policy decision at some higher

level than the Egg Marketing Board.

"In practical terms, there is no way that I can see of the

Egg Marketing Board being able to institute policies that are

in any way at variance with the interests of the producers in

the lower mainland. If no change in basis of representation is

made — and it is difficult to justify a change as the pattern

of production now exists — then it would appear that some sort

of review procedure or some referee on board policy matters

must be established at government level to ensure that minority

groups within the board's jurisdiction have available to them a

court of appeal from board orders and board regulations."

The real crux of this matter, in my opinion, is the right of

the small farmers on Vancouver Island, the Interior and the

north and east Kootenays to have a fair chance at egg marketing

in this province.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I

can hardly believe the words the Premier just spoke when he

said that the real crux of this matter has to do with the

Garrish report. The real crux of this matter, Mr. Premier,

through you, Mr. Chairman, has to do with whether or not you

were telling the truth to the House on February 25 and February

I'll read it into the record again. On February 25, you were

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

whether or not on October 26, 1972, at a meeting in his office,

the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board was asked to

substantially

[ Page 848 ]

reduce their financial claim against a Mr. Sy Kovachich, an

NDP supporter from Taber Lake in the Fort George constituency,

as referred to and subsequently commented upon by the Premier

in The Province newspaper on February 21 and 22. The

reply of the Premier: "Mr. Speaker, they were not asked or

ordered or suggested to be ordered to do anything."

Later on, after a supplementary as to whether the Premier

had told anyone to draft an agreement, the Premier said: "I

told no one to draft an agreement."

HON. MR. BARRETT: I suggested they get together.

MR. GIBSON: That's what Hansard says, Mr. Premier,

through you, Mr. Chairman.

Then we have an affidavit from Mr. Brunsdon, substantially

confirmed by Mr. Unger. The affidavit said that that meeting of

the egg board was informed by the Premier that "'there will be

no court case against Sy Kovachich' or similar words to the

same effect" — that's an order, when it comes from the Premier,

Mr. Chairman — and that they were further informed that "the

charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced." That

also is an order. It goes on in that affidavit — similar

contradictions.

That's just one case, Mr. Chairman. The next case is much

more recent. The next case is February, 1974. On that occasion,

the Premier in Hansard of February 26 said, relating to

broiler quotas: "Mr. Speaker, I did not order anyone to be

given any quotas related to broilers." And he said later: "I

did not direct that a committee of three be struck to allocate

broiler quotas." Very simple, clear, direct recollections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Or words to that effect.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Attorney-General, there are no "words to

that effect" in this case.

In the affidavit filed by Mr. McAninch, points 11 and 12 —

and I imagine you have studied them carefully — said that....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, you're not interested, Mr. Member. I'm not

surprised you're not interested because it has to do with the

word of the Premier, and you're pretty disturbed about it,

through you, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: The testimony of Mr. McAninch referred to the Deputy Minister

of Agriculture, Mr. Peterson, who was quoting the Hon. Premier, and in quoting

him noted that he had ordered that certain quotas be allocated. Mr. McAninch

says the Deputy says that when the Premier said he didn't issue any orders.

Then it says in point 12:

"That I was further informed by the said Mr. Peterson that

Mr. Barrett had directed that a committee of three be appointed

to determine allocation of broiler permits on the basis ordered

by Mr. Barrett."

The Premier said in the House on February 26: "I did not

direct that a committee of three be struck to allocate broiler

quotas."

Now, Mr. Chairman, surely the Premier should have no

difficulty understanding that the question here goes far beyond

quotas, be they broilers or eggs. The question here is: who is

telling the truth? And there is directly contradictory

evidence. The people of British Columbia know that there is

directly contradictory evidence, and they're concerned about

the fact that apparently the highest office in British Columbia

has breached the fundamental principle of trust on which this

Legislature has to operate. The word of a Member, particularly

the word of a Premier, must be sacred. If that is sullied by

this kind of a cloud over it, and if the Premier refuses to

take the simple steps open to him to discharge that cloud, to

remove it or to prove it, then to me he's not doing his duty,

and he's in breach of his trust to the citizens of British

Columbia.

It's so simple, Mr. Chairman. We're not talking about a lot

of people. We're talking about 16 people that were at those

meetings. Four of them have sworn affidavits, which relate to

orders given by the Premier, and the Premier has denied that

such orders were given.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wasn't even at one meeting. I wasn't

even at the second meeting.

MR. GIBSON: You were quoted at the second meeting, Mr.

Premier, by a Deputy Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now you're going to convict me on

hearsay.

MR. GIBSON: Quoted by a Deputy Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on!

MR. GIBSON: I'm sure you'd want to give that Deputy Minister

a chance to say something about that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, to come to the aid of the Liberal

party.

[ Page

849 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Garde, aren't you embarrassed by all

this?

MR. GIBSON: A quarter of all the people at those meetings

have sworn out affidavits, and the Premier has said things to

this House directly 180 degrees at odds with those affidavits.

And there are another five people, outsiders at those meetings,

who could give testimony if they were called by an inquiry. And

there's another person who's completely lost his memory,

apparently — the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

And then there's five other people who are civil servants who

have effectively been muzzled by the implied orders of the

Minister of Agriculture in this House.

So with that short history, Mr. Chairman, I say to you that

it's unbelievable to me that the Premier doesn't understand

what the crux of this matter is. The crux of this matter is his

honour and his word. He should take the steps open to him to

clear it up through the holding of a public inquiry to get to

the bottom of this mess.

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

back to two or three statements that have been made in the

debate this afternoon. In one the Premier got up after my

colleague, the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), listed

some names that are serving on a patronage basis under the

Premier's hand; and he tried to again cloud the issue by

drawing in side points. I would just pose to him perhaps that

he would like to comment on the names that sit in the area of

the Okanagan Valley.

There is the name on the hospital board, under the Premier's

hand, of Winters — one Gerry Winters — appointed to the hospital

board following his defeat by the current sitting Member of the

Legislature for North Okanagan.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How about Mr. Morton, an ex-Social Credit

candidate?

MRS. JORDAN: Then we have in the Okanagan on our regional

college council, Mr. Chairman, many interesting names: O'Neil,

a delightful lady, but the wife of a former defeated NDP

candidate.

Then we look down the list and we find the name Mephan

residing under the Premier's hand — a member of a very

well-known and staunch NDP family. We look down the list and we

find the name Bond — the wife of a former NDP candidate.

Then we saw, Mr. Chairman, a member of that committee who has served the regional

college council for many years, a lady, who was a government appointment — and

up to this day I do not know of what political faith — and who resided as chairman

of the regional college council. This lady is no longer the appointment from

the North Okanagan, nor is she chairman of the regional college council. We

have a new name representing the people of the North Okanagan on that council,

residing under the Premier's hand, and that name is Pringle. Its association

is as the defeated NDP candidate in the previous provincial election.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want it clearly understood that in

mentioning these names in this House I am in no way attacking

these people as individuals.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MRS. JORDAN: They are very nice people.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Very nice people; they just don't belong

to your party.

MRS. JORDAN: But what does concern me as the MLA, Mr.

Premier, which you just don't seem to understand, is that you

are indulging in political patronage in the constituency which

I represent in a manner that has never before been seen in

British Columbia...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MRS. JORDAN: ...not even in the coalition days. And what is

even more concerning to the people in this area — and it is

reflected around the province as you continue this programme —

is that you are in fact bringing partisan politics into

education.

You asked if I would apologize to the Deputy Minister of

Travel Industry. I have no reason to apologize to him. I would

ask if you wish me to apologize to the Deputy Minister of

Education.

This is a matter of serious concern, Mr. Premier, this

patronage, and it is blatant. It is not only wrong in the

context of your responsibility to the people of this province;

it is wrong to these people who might well serve in various

areas, were they not so heavily tainted with your patronage

reputation that is now under attack.

Mr. Chairman, along with the situation that we have

witnessed this afternoon, where the integrity and the word of

the Premier is under attack — and we have seen a Member of this

House expelled for sticking to his principles and standing by

the people — I think it's even more shocking to have sat here

and listened to the Premier of this province try to cloak

himself in the Garrish report — to try to use a report

commissioned by a previous government to cloak his guilt. I

suggest that his actions are doing a great disservice to

another citizen in this province — Mr. Garrish himself.

I would ask the Premier, if he is so fond of using the

Garrish report, why didn't the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich) refer to the Garrish

[ Page 850 ]

report in his estimates?

HON. MR. BARRETT: He tabled it!

MRS. JORDAN: Tabled it! Mr. Premier, this report has been

sitting in your office for months. This whole issue has been

here for months.

Mr. Premier, the House has been sitting three times since

this whole issue came to your office; and that is what is at

question.

The Premier likes to refer back to the Garrish report. He

said how it was commissioned by the other government and the

former administration, and indeed it was. But they recognized

then, as is stated in the report, that the matters of concern

in the poultry and egg marketing business were such that more

time and more study were needed.

Consistently the Premier has used this report out of context

to support a position that is not only not acceptable but now

is under great suspicion.

I would like to point out some of the points that the

Premier has left out in the Garrish report. Mr. Garrish says on

page 5:

"Further, it should be stated that the survey group quickly

became aware that the job confronting the Egg Marketing Board was in no way

an easy one, that in many cases it was breaking new ground with no one else's

experience to draw on, and that its problem was very materially complicated

by the patterns of egg production throughout British Columbia" ...et cetera.

"Generally speaking, the survey team was impressed" ...

...by the work of this board, and in a relatively short period

of time.

Then he goes on to say, when he's discussed some of the

problems of the board — and this is what the Premier didn't

quote:

" This decision" — relating to one of the matters he's

discussing — "would have to be made at some level above the

board because in my opinion it is impossible for the board, as

presently constituted, to reverse its position. A very tempting

solution would be to simply amend the scheme in line with what

is now taking place, but in the long run this seems certain to

reduce or eliminate any flexibility in the operation of the

quotas of the board, and to make it more difficult for the

development of an increased production in the outlying areas of

the province."

He cautions the Premier that Band-aid approaches would not

be helpful in the long run, and would not be acceptable. He

goes on to say on page 15:

"Any changes to the quota system will require much more

study than the survey group was able to give."

Again, a recommendation — not for the Premier to stick his finger in the pie

and flex political muscles, but much more study. He goes on to say again on

page 21:

"The concern now should be that all policy decisions are

made with the fullest possible knowledge of the facts and for

this to come about, people who have had this knowledge must be included

in the discussions and be free to make their

contributions."

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has said in this House in the few

days that he doesn't know anything about the workings of the

board. He just knew what they were doing was wrong. The report

he chooses to try and cloak himself in has told him that there

must be people with knowledge and the fullest possible

understanding, in a broad context, in all these

discussions.

Mr. Premier, he didn't say to you, "Abuse your office." He

told you over and over again in this report that there were

problems — in spite of the fact that the board had done an

excellent job in many ways — that it should go to a higher level

of government and that it should be examined in depth.

What he was telling you, Mr. Premier, was to bring it to

this Legislature, where it should properly be discussed. Or

utilize through this Legislature the agriculture committee, or

through this Legislature appoint another committee to examine

it in its fullest concept, so that what is potentially an

excellent programme can continue to put money in the producers'

pockets.

Mr. Chairman, that is summed up today in the words of Mr.

Garrish himself. When he was interviewed as to his view of what

was happening in the Legislature, I believe he quite rightly

said he didn't wish to comment because it did not relate to his

report; but he did say, and I quote:

"Garrish said the three-member study group he chaired

recommended to the government that a much longer and more

detailed investigation of problems in the egg industry be

undertaken."

Mr. Chairman, along with the evidence that has been

presented on the ability of the Premier to tell the truth, I

submit the report that the Premier himself is trying to use as

a shelter. I submit that it refutes every word he said in this

debate in relation to why he used political muscle and

jeopardize his position as Premier in this province.

Mr. Chairman, if one examines the record of this government

and the problems in British Columbia, and the fact that the

whole issue here is truth in government and the integrity of

government, we can't rest solely with the egg-and-chicken

war.

Wherever we look in British Columbia we see that we simply cannot narrow down

this question. It is the broad spectrum of the actions of this government that

are now under question in relation to the

[ Page

851 ]

tendency to abuse extreme powers, both by the Minister and

the Premier, and to whether or not the people of British

Columbia can feel trust and confidence in their own

government.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the matter of Plateau

Mills is one that can be used as a classic example. And I say

one because, as we look around British Columbia, we see that

these questions arise more and more as this government gallops

into private enterprise, elbowing its way in, muscling its way

in. It's happened in the poultry business, the Columbia

Cellulose deal, Dunhill and Plateau Mills. Everywhere there are

serious questions being asked and serious charges being made.

And all we get from this Premier is, "It's nonsense, it's

nonsense."

Let's just look and see what some of these people are

saying. Regarding Plateau Mills: on June 28, 1973, a respected

businessman in the Province of British Columbia, in fact two of

them, one a chartered accountant, suggested that they had been

muscled out by this government. The same gentlemen — and the

spokesman was Mr. Gerald D. Phillips — said: "The shareholders

of Columbia Cellulose accepted a $2 million loss in their sale

because the men were afraid they might be hurt financially by

subsequent action of this government." And the Premier says,

"Nonsense."

What did Mayor Everett Stevens have to say about this

action? I assume the Premier would feel that a duly elected

mayor has the right to expect that his word would be accepted

every bit as much as that of the Premier. Mayor Everett Stevens

of Vanderhoof said: "Williams' justifications for buying the

mill are totally invalid, and the Minister is speaking out of

the side of his mouth." One more example of a serious question

of integrity within this government.

Oh, Mr. Chairman, what a web we weave when first we practise

to dabble in philosophy in the marketplace.

It's not confined to individuals; it's confined in

editorials. On Friday, June 28, 1973, in the Sun they said:

"How's that again, Mr. Barrett? So the government came to

the rescue of Plateau and bought the majority interests in the company for $7

million. But it turns out that there was another Canadian offer being put together,

with the government's knowledge, to buy Plateau for $10 million. The Canadian

bidders are screaming 'foul' with some apparent justification. "

Now, why Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman — would your Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and one of your MLAs, who I'm

sure you're very familiar with, Mr. Chairman, go to a group of Canadians and

say "There is an opportunity to buy out a company and make it Canadian"? And

these people, on the advice of your Minister and your MLA, went to a great deal

of work to present a programme that just happened to come in too late. And the

Premier says, "Well, the shareholders were glad to have our offer — $2 million

less."

I suggest to you that the shareholders saw the writing on

the wall. They saw that they were dealing with a government

where integrity did not count, and that they were dealing with

a government that was prepared to use muscle, as evidenced

before this House. Mr. Chairman, I suggest these people took

their money and ran because they don't want to have anything

more to do with British Columbia.

And what is even equally as distressing, Mr. Chairman, is

that at the same time this is going on, the Premier is spending

tax dollars — going to the United States, going to other

countries to encourage investment in British Columbia. The

question that comes to mind, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the

Premier is: do you not understand what your actions are doing

not only to your own position as Premier in this province, not

only to your own position as Premier in this province, not only

to the positions of your Minister, but to the very integrity of

this jurisdiction?

If the Premier doesn't understand, it is that he just

doesn't want to. In 18 short months he and his colleagues have

become so arrogant that they simply do not care about the

future of this province and the future governments of this

province who must deal in the international marketplace, and

whose word must be respected. Do they not care about the

reputation that British Columbians have worked so hard to build

over the last many years in regard to their integrity?

Mr. Chairman, it doesn't stop there. Even one of his own

questions the actions of this government: Jack Monroe. Mr.

Monroe is the IWA regional vice-president, and on Friday, June

29, 1973, in relation to the Plateau Mills situation and

controversy, he said: "He thinks the government is making a

mistake."

There are headlines everywhere: "Heat on the Government to

Resell Mills." Vancouver Sun , June 29: "Beech charged earlier

that the government had used terror tactics." The Sun editorial

on Friday, June 29 said: "Feeling the pressure."

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

these remarks to the estimates before us?

MRS. JORDAN: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if you are not aware, the

Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province, whose

estimates we are debating now and whose salary we are debating

now, is the very man who must assume the responsibility not

only for the direct charges against him in the chicken-and-egg

war, but in fact in relation to all the charges that are

[ Page 852 ]

being raised in this province as to the integrity of this

government, as to the ability for this government to tell the

truth. Our Party has asked for an inquiry in relation to all

these matters so that this can be cleared up to everyone's

satisfaction. It should be impartial. The Premier has nothing

to lose. If he is innocent, then this judicial inquiry will

clear up all the charges against him. If he isn't, Mr. Member,

then the integrity of the parliamentary process must be

honoured, not for the sake of this government or that man, Mr.

Chairman, but for the sake of democracy and for the sake of

British Columbia itself.

I find it extremely strange that everywhere you look, in

relation to charges against this government and this Premier,

that the only answer we get from the Premier, is "Fowl." He

accuses the Sun of cheap political politics; the egg and

market people don't tell the truth. "Nonsense," he says.

It seems to me the only conversation in British Columbia today

that supports this Premier in his stand is in the home of Mrs.

Barrett when she says, "Isn't it funny everybody's out of step

but our Davie."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, there are two things I wish

to say. First of all on the Plateau Mills story: the Vancouver

Province sent a reporter down to interview the former

president of the company, and in a very responsible manner

reported what the president said. The president who was

involved in the negotiation denied the Vancouver

Province . They sent a reporter down to talk to the

principals before The Vancouver Sun ran its headlines

saying: "Terror Tactics." The question was put by the reporter,

one Alec Young as I recall: "Were there terror tactics used?"

The answer was no.

I did not see a front-page headline in The Vancouver

Sun saying "Terror Tactics Not Used," although I

would have expected that wording if they wished to correct

their story.

Secondly, the Member said that the Garrish report was not

made public. Well, since I must go to sources who are not

necessarily supporters of the government, I refer the Madam

Member to The Vancouver Sun of October 30, 1972. Two

weeks after the Minister of Agriculture was sworn in the

Garrish report was released and there was an extensive report

in the paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Smoke screen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Smoke screen? The point is that the report

was available and that Member deliberately tried to leave the

impression in the House that it wasn't available. Again, I

question the ability of their own order-in-council

appointments.

I quote the Minister saying on October 30: "The new NDP Agriculture Minister,

Dave Stupich, said in an interview here Friday that the report's findings will

form the basis of continuing discussions between officials of his department

and the marketing board." October 30, 1972.

I'd like to call the attention of the House to the fact that

there is a veteran of many political debates in this House

present with us today and in very good health. I'd like to

welcome Harold Winch.

Now, Mr. Chairman, to one other matter. I asked the Member

to apologize to Mr. Colby; she saw fit not to apologize to Mr.

Colby. I think it's ironic that they selected Mr. Colby, who

has some 40 years in public service, to attack. Who did he

replace? He replaced that well-known choreographer of the

former Premier — oh yes, and I say choreographer by deliberate

intention — none other than Mr. Ron Worley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Do not baste our Ronnie.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Chairman, if you want to trade

politics for 40 years in the civil service, we'll take Mr.

Colby any day.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): I would like to make a few

comments about some of the points raised. Also, I want to add a

few more comments on some other topics.

We hear mention made about words used as terror tactics, in

talking about somebody who was going to buy an $8 million

sawmill for $1,000 down payment. That would mean 55 Members in

this House could buy 55 sawmills or pulp mills for $1,000 each.

It's a very, very strange way to do business I would think. If

that is what you call terror tactics in Plateau Mills or egg

marketing boards or Kootenay Forest Products, just how far out

of proportion can one get?

The people in the Interior, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman,

are very, very much concerned. They are very happy to find out

that there is today a government interested in the local people

getting the opportunity to produce the local products without

being denied the right by the monopolies of the lower

mainland.

We talk about the Garrish report. There are statements in

here that say the Egg Marketing Board did a wonderful job. I

agree, Mr. Chairman, that they did a wonderful job for

Clearbrook, but he's suggesting it's time they start doing a

wonderful job for the people of British Columbia as a whole,

not for Clearbrook.

The slickety-slick city-slicker Members for Vancouver-Point Grey or the chicken

farmers of the Liberal Party for once and for all are going to have to find

out what is going on in the Interior. The people want their right to do things

for themselves, not to be

[ Page

853 ]

denied by the Clearbrook monopoly. If they're on the side of

the Clearbrook monopoly so be it, but they should go out and

find out what really is going on in the province.

Up in northern British Columbia we've got vast resources and

it appears that it is the harvesting ground of the people of

British Columbia — the harvesting ground. Up there, people in

the north like to be part of this harvesting operation which is

producing tremendous revenue for the Province of British

Columbia. The people who are going to enjoy the benefits from

the revenue should also include the people of northern British

Columbia. This is why, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to further

improvements in many respects such as the social aspect, the

educational aspect, medical-care aspect throughout the entire

north.

When we talk about harvesting resources, it takes more than

just trees or minerals; it takes energy, transportation and

human resources to do these things. Each one of those four

things requires some interlocking arrangement in order to make

the whole thing work so that we have more than just benefit

from resources, so that we've got the people who get the

benefit in the region as a whole.

When we think of energy, that's one thing; but

transportation regarding railroads is a tremendous problem in

the region. As has been mentioned before, we've got two

railroads in northern British Columbia: the Canadian National

Railway, which is the people's railroad, and the British

Columbia Railway which is the people's railroad. But somehow or

other these two people's railroads have difficulty talking to

one another.

We've got a situation of shortage of boxcars. Anybody

running a railroad has to realize it takes rolling stock to

move the traffic. It takes more than executives or a few

locomotives; it takes a full complement of rolling stock. This

is where planning for industry is just as important as planning

for municipalities and so forth. So consequently, we have a

real problem in shortage of boxcars.

As a matter of fact, one people's railroad is somehow or

other coordinating their operation so that the industries, be

it in Mackenzie or be it in Chetwynd, or Quesnel, 100 Mile

House, or even across the river in the City of Prince George....

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You stay out of Cariboo.

MR. NUNWEILER: I'm in this House, Mr. Member, and you're my

neighbour; I'm expecting you to somehow or other agree with me.

I'm sure you will.

MR. FRASER: Impossible.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): You grow rich

on those railways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. NUNWEILER: The industry is in the position where they

have railway tracks in their pulp mills and in their sawmills

in this region. Yet they find they have to haul their products

across the river or 100 or 200 miles away and load it on the

site of another people's railroad.

The question is why? Why is it they say there's a shortage

of boxcars? If they've got boxcars to load on their own

railroad in Prince George, there can't be a shortage on that

point. So somebody is trying to kid somebody else.

Interjections.

MR. NUNWEILER: The cost of hauling the equivalent of one

railway car, either across the river or 100 miles — whatever it

is — works out to anywhere from $300 to $600 per car in

addition to the normal freight expenditure on that product.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver-Point Grey): Compared to B.C.

Rail.

MR. NUNWEILER: We've got one year of documented evidence now

in the B.C. Railway report. In one year there was the

equivalent of 9,700 cars, which is almost 10,000, transported

by highway to the other people's railway, the Canadian

National. The cost simply works out to $3 million to $6 million

more in transportation costs to move those products than it

normally would have cost if they were to spot their rolling

stock in the appropriate industrial site. That's $3 million to

$6 million taken out of the economy, in effect out of the

people's pockets, just so that a railway is able to get the

full freight complement out of that product. Freight revenue in

those 9,700 cars is $3.4 million. So Canadian National has

incurred a $3 million to $6 million extra cost on people in the

region just so they can reap this extra $3.4 million for their

own operation.

MR. FRASER: Right on.

MR. NUNWEILER: I don't think that Minister of Transport

Marchand is really aware of this. We did have Senator Perreault

in the area once and he acknowledged the problem. Mind you, he

thought he'd solved it, but he found out later, of course, that

the 1,000 cars he was sending down here we had bought already

anyway.

MR. FRASER: Senator Perreault was up there looking for the

Liberals.

[ Page 854 ]

MR. NUNWEILER: I wish him the best of luck, but after the

last couple of days it's going to be harder and harder and

harder to find them.

MR. FRASER: It's easier to find boxcars than it is to find

Liberals in that country.

MR. NUNWEILER: Mr. Chairman, people in that region no longer

want to be treated as second-class citizens. They don't want to

be treated as a second-class region, whether it is for boxcars,

whether it's for eggs, or whether it's for any other consumer

product. They don't want to be second-class citizens.

All the people in the Interior and we up there congratulate

the government, to give some hope that something is going to be

done about these things — and all quit talking and talking and

talking and never getting anywhere.

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that I hear so many

stories. One of my voters up there.... Good heavens, I have

more than one voter; I have another 8,400 voters, and we've got

all kinds of things that we're going to have to do as a

government for the whole region of the Interior, not just for

the people in Point Grey or in Clearbrook or anybody else.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get

back to the issue. I don't know how many times we have to point

out to the government, Mr. Chairman, what the issues really

are. They don't have anything to do with the Garrish report,

nor the prostitution of that report in its presentation to the

House the other day.

The issue once again, and I guess we'll just keep repeating

it until the government understands....

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

agree that the use of a word such as "prostitution" is

unparliamentary language, and I would ask him to choose a more

suitable word.

MR. McCLELLAND: What is your authority, Mr. Chairman? Is

that one of the words that's been on the list? I haven't seen

it. Where is it written?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps we should have a public list to hang

on the wall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the use of the word is in the

imputation that lies behind the word rather than the word

itself.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Would the Hon. Member for Langley continue?

There is no point of order. Would the Hon. Member continue? I'll accept his

withdrawal.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue in this

whole matter once again is government by responsible action

versus government by brass knuckles. The issue is integrity in

government; the issue is simply one of truth.

It's very disturbing to me, Mr. Chairman, that we've seen

once again in this House a Member forced to withdraw from this

chamber because the government has refused to face up to the

truth, because the government refused to accept the earnest

pleas for a public inquiry into a matter of very urgent public

interest. That's why this Member was forced to withdraw and for

no other reason. The government must face up to the truth.

Mr. Chairman, the people in question who have signed these

affidavits have convinced the people of British Columbia that

they're telling the truth. They've convinced everyone in this

province that it's the Premier and Minister of Finance who is

not facing the issues. They've convinced the people of British

Columbia that they are responsible and truthful people. All we

ask is that the Premier of this House take the next logical

step and allow the kind of full and honest public inquiry we've

been asking for in this House for a number of days to take

place.

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier and Minister of Finance won't

take the advice of the Members of the opposition, then I ask

him to take the advice of one of his own Members, because I

think the Premier was absent from the House when this was

brought up before.

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) himself has said, not

within the protection of this House, Mr. Chairman, but outside

in the public in a public newspaper report in regard to the

whole question of marketing boards — and I quote from his

newspaper report; the Member for Shuswap has said, "Somewhere

between the Minister of Agriculture and the representatives

from the government attending that meeting" — he was referring

to a meeting of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board in Vernon,

British Columbia — "Somewhere between the Minister and the

representatives from government attending that meeting there

are lies and contradictions."

Lies, Mr. Chairman — and that not from a Member of the

opposition, but from the Member for Shuswap, a Member of this

government. It's strong evidence that there's a need for a full

public inquiry immediately into this whole matter, and that

there was no need for that Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) to be forced to withdraw from this House because of

his principles.

I want to ask what's going to happen next. We

[ Page

855 ]

can't leave this issue standing where it is at the moment;

something more has to be done.

I'd like to refer to Hansard of Monday, November 5,

1973, when a similar matter was before this House and the Hon.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) insisted that this matter

be dealt with forthwith.

The Attorney-General at that time said that he would appoint

and nominate forthwith without notice a committee of privilege

to deal with the statements made in the House by the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) against the Hon. Robert Strachan, and

that

...the said committee shall with all speed inquire into the said allegations and report its recommendations

thereon to this assembly before the end of this session; the

said committee of selection to be composed of...

...and the

Members were named.

There's no need for a Member to have to stand in this House

and raise this kind of an issue as a matter of privilege

because the Speaker made it very clear at that time that that

wasn't necessary. The Speaker said that he would treat this

matter as a breach of privilege regardless of the fact that a

Member had refused to withdraw a statement that was

unparliamentary.

I'm quoting from Hansard again, Mr. Chairman:

It's

not for me, as Speaker, to determine the facts of the matter, but only the refusal of a Member to withdraw.

But it is my duty to determine whether what was said amounts to

a breach of privilege. I indicated this afternoon that it did,

in my view — in my opinion, you understand — constitute a

matter of privilege that should be inquired into. It follows

that the motion therefore would be in order without notice,

once I'd made that determination, providing that the motion is

in proper form.

Mr. Chairman, that's evidence once again, in this matter

which has been raised in this House today because of the ruling

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

withdraw — strong evidence — that we can't leave it sit there;

something more urgent must be done.

I'm not suggesting to the House what should be done; I'm

only suggesting that something had better be done, and done

quickly, to deal with this matter.

I would suggest that a committee of privilege be set up

immediately and that the Premier go one step further and once

and for all withdraw the cloud of suspicion that's hanging all

over the Province of British Columbia by announcing to this

House that he will set up a committee of inquiry — and do it

now.

Why not take that extra step, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman? I would

like to move at this time that the committee rise and report progress so that

the House could be reconvened and that this whole matter should be gone into

with regard to the matter of privilege that was raised earlier today.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 36

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I was afraid that you had

developed a blind spot for this corner of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to focus if I may once more on what

is the central issue at stake here and the very few key facts

surrounding that central issue. To me it's a matter of deep

regret that you, sir, have to report to the Speaker, and the

Speaker, under our standing orders, must take action against a

Member (Mr. D.A. Anderson) of this House whose only

transgression is that of telling the truth. There is no

question that truth in government is the issue and that the

Premier, the Ministers of the Crown and the government

backbenchers have refused to acknowledge or accept that they

are on trial in this House and before the court of public

opinion in British Columbia.

Originally, when we read the affidavit of William Henry

Lawrence Brunsdon to this House, we asked the Minister of

Agriculture a series of direct questions stemming from the

individual points in that affidavit which numbered 36. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister could not recall, and he stated before

this House that he wished not to recall, that particular

meeting.

He had an opportunity to clear the Premier's name. He had an

opportunity to verify the statements in that affidavit by

talking to the man who sat next to him in a chair and who was

present at that meeting. Instead, he stood up and advised — if

you take it one way — or ordered — if you take it

[ Page 856 ]

another — that that civil servant and other civil servants

present at that meeting keep to themselves what took place in

the Premier's office.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, we've heard the Premier's version of that day: how he acted as

a marriage counselor. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the affidavit which lies before us

in this House clearly states that the Premier did order....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you accusing him of lying?

MR. McGEER: You quite understand, Mr. Attorney-General, what

we're accusing the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier of

doing. It's what the affidavit says he has been doing: failing

to tell the truth.

The Premier has given a vague account of that day. He had

told us that he didn't apply pressure. But then he reads to us

a report, which I presume was read today and released the day

after that meeting in his office, recommending, if you

interpret it the way the Premier chose to do, that pressure be

applied. On the other hand he has told us flatly that he did

not apply pressure, and on the other hand he uses a report in

his defence and interprets to us that he only did what the

report recommended, which was to apply pressure. That in itself

is a direct contradiction that's been laid before us just in

the last two days.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like you, sir, and the other Members of

the House, to consider the discrepancy we have had just in the

past two days with one other point in the affidavit, which I

personally consider to be the key point in this whole issue.

Point No. 15: "THAT I was informed by the Premier in the

following words that: 'If anything is said outside of this

office I will deny every word I said'...”

No one could make a statement like that and forget he had

made it. No one could make a statement like that without very

seriously considering the consequences to himself and to

others. On the one hand he must have calculated that if they

were to talk outside his office he would be in trouble. That's

why he said it. Where he miscalculated was in the consequences

to him if he was held to account for that statement, not by the

members who were present in that office but by the people of

British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has not denied that he said

that directly. If he failed to say that, and if this affidavit

is false, I want him to deny directly that he said that today

in this House, because that is the key statement. A calculated

threat. A promise, if you like, but one which, according to the

affidavit, he has kept.

The veracity and the conduct of the Premier in the Premier's office are at

issue here today. The Premier was new in office at the time this meeting was

held. I'm certain the public would have forgiven him this transgression had

he stepped forward a year-and-a-half later and said: "Yes, I said that. I was

wrong and I am sorry."

We are all human. We all make mistakes. No one who sits in

the Premier's office is going to sit there very long without

making mistakes. But the test, Mr. Chairman, is how you face

those mistakes. It's still the test, Mr. Chairman.

The Second Member for Victoria, the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A.

Anderson), was telling the truth. The Premier has slithered

past this point. We aren't happy but we can accept a man in

office who makes mistakes, even if they are gross ones. What we

cannot accept, Mr. Chairman, is somebody who is sitting in the

Premier's office who hasn't got the courage to live up to his

mistakes and admit them. There is only one office of Premier in

this land and that office has to be held high before

everybody.

I would ask the Premier a direct question. Mr. Chairman, I

also plead with him to save the prestige of his office, to

stand up and admit his mistakes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on! You won't take his

word.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A year ago, for cheap political purposes,

I was accused of a certain misdemeanor in this House just

because someone in this House happened to be running for the

leadership and had to get his name in the paper. That was what

it was all about — cheap politics. I won't put the exact value

on the politics but it was cheap politics and the Member knew

it. Everybody in this House knew it! But we referred it to a

legislative committee and then what happened? They said: "Oh,

it was partisan politics!" The Leader of the Opposition just

the other day — Monday of this week — talked about a "weighted

committee," weighted in favour of the government, and he

asked for it again the other day.

MR. McCLELLAND: Tell us what the vote was!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So it doesn't matter what happens — you

are not going to accept it. You are going to reject it as you

did the finding of the committee last year. It's obvious that

this is just part of a blunderbuss vilification programme that

the whole opposition are embarked on together with the

hotlines, the commentators and the people who are sorry this

government was elected. It's part of a blunderbuss vilification — an attempt to destroy the parliamentary system. That's what

you are trying to do!

[ Page

857 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Poor little government! Poor little boy!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You know, I used to ask for a judicial

inquiry about every second session. But never have I seen the

blunderbuss vilification which is part of a concerted effort

aided and abetted by the commentators and the hotliners — and

we know whose side they're on. That's what this is all about — smears, bluff and cheap politics!

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): Who is Mr. Brunsdon

vilifying?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Accusatory motions, dragging in civil

servants who have been with this government for 30 and 35 years — the whole gamut. Motions against this, motions against that,

motions against this one, motions against that one — it's

probably the most mucky opposition we have ever had in this

province, bar none!

I want to tell you that I stand right behind the Premier of

British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I have tried to follow this

debate and take an objective appraisal of the evidence and

opinions that have been expressed to the House. In an earlier

speech, although I stated that in my opinion the Premier had

interfered, at that point in time it was just a question of

political interference which I considered to be the issue. I

tried to be practical enough to realize that this kind of

interference goes on as part of the fabric of political life,

but the issue has become something different.

I don't think the smokescreen which we have just seen put up

by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) does anything to add to the quality of this

debate.

The fact is that the issue has been raised as to whether or

not the Premier lied. At this point in time I don't know

whether the Premier lied. Nobody knows other than the claim

that four people say he did. The fact is, and it's been said

many ways and many times, that the whole fabric of the

parliamentary system, the trust of all the people of the

province in government and leaders — no matter what government,

no matter what leader — is so fundamental to the survival of

our democratic system that I have to come to the reluctant

conclusion that the Premier should take action to clear his

name.

A Member in this House has stood here on the floor and accused the Premier

of lying. As I say, I don't know whether he did or did not, Mr. Chairman. But

I say that if I were in the Premier's shoes and I were innocent, I could not

sit still and listen to this kind of accusation without taking some personal

action at my discretion — in this case the Premier's discretion — to prove that

in fact what he, sitting in his seat today, believes to be the truth is clearly

and unequivocally demonstrated in some fashion or another to be the truth.

We can't, with respect, Mr. Chairman, even question the

motivation of the accusation. The Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said this is the basest,

cheap political motive that is behind the accusation, and the

Minister could be correct. The Premier could be correct in

saying that he did not lie. But a fundamental fact for the

people of British Columbia is that a very serious charge has

been laid by a Member of this House, who, if he is proven to be

wrong, must resign his seat in this House.

We all know that to make a charge of this severity against

any Member — the lowest backbencher or the Premier of the

government — carries the clear understanding that to make such

a serious charge carries the same penalty for the accuser if it

is proven to be unfounded.

Whether the Minister of Transport and Communications is

correct or not in his own

interpretation of the incident in

which he was involved, there is this procedure. The Premier has

often stated how he respects the parliamentary system and the

democratic rules under which we function, and in the case of

the Minister of Transport and Communications that parliamentary

procedure followed its course and a Committee of Privilege was

held.

As I say, it is not even as important to understand any

motivation that might be behind the committee so much as to

open up the whole issue under consideration to the fullest

opportunity on both sides to prove whether or not a man in a

very responsible position of government lied.

The precedents are there from the mother of parliament for

hundreds of years. At this point in time I think we also know —

and the Premier knows from his experience on radio this morning — the comments of many concerned members of the public in

British Columbia. Whether or not a lie has been told, the

question is the people of British Columbia know the issue has

been raised. I heard one lady say how little it mattered to her

that this particular argument consisted of a debate over

chickens and eggs. What she said was "Mr. Premier, how do we

know about your word on the bigger issues?"

There are many bigger issues in the province now and

unquestionably in the future. In the light of such a blatant

accusation this afternoon and the fact that another Member has

chosen to make the accusation and put his own seat on the line,

even if the Premier is innocent and if he knows he's innocent

and he's convinced he is innocent, the correct and proper

thing to do is to hold some form of inquiry at which the

Premier can demonstrate unquestionably that his position is

sound. Above all, by proving his position is

[ Page 858 ]

sound, throughout the rest of his administration in this

province his word will be taken to be what we have always taken

it to be: completely honest, reliable and unequivocal.

I say this with great reluctance, Mr. Premier, to you

through the Chair: if some such action is not taken by you, it

is my feeling from listening to radio and talking to the public

that your own credibility, your own ability and capacity to

function as the leader of this province at such a crucial time

in the history of the province will be very seriously damaged

if the situation is left exactly as it is.

The Premier has said that he has made his statement and the

accusers made their statements. He knows he is innocent, and

that's where the matter rests. With the greatest respect, I

have to say that individuals in society cannot be satisfied

with that sort of situation. The general tenor of the comments

on the radio programme this morning seem to follow that path.

This matter must be put to the test by one vehicle or another,

by a judicial inquiry, or by a committee on privilege. It is

certainly a very serious charge; the most serious charge that

can be leveled against any one of us in this House.

As the record shows, I, speaking for the Conservative Party,

had felt that up until the point that such a blatant accusation

was actually made in this House the Premier could choose to

answer the issue in the way he has been doing. But as one of

the Members behind me says, the corner has been turned. But

today a responsible Member of this House and, as it happens, a

leader of one of the parties made a blunt accusation of the

Premier. For the evidence to be that the Premier is not

planning to take any action to clear his name in the face of

such a serious accusation is something that disturbs me

considerably.

I know the Premier respects the parliamentary system and the

democratic principles that are followed. We've had examples in

Britain of Members who said something less than the truth and

who were later committed to the honourable action of resigning.

We needn't mention names; we know whom we're talking about. I

also have that respect for the fact that each one of us in this

House is on his honour. When he makes a statement, as the

chairman and the Speaker so frequently remind us, each and

every one of us accepts that statement.

Now, we have a situation where a Member of the House has

refused to accept the word of the Premier and has been ejected

from the House. I think we have to recognize that the accusers

in the first instance have put their names to statements. The

Attorney-General looks up and he's ready to interfere....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's based on recollections after a

year-and-a-half of a short meeting....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Oak Bay has the floor. Order,

the Member for Oak Bay is speaking.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: There has been a great deal of mention that

this was a recollection of a conversation 18 months ago. But

even if one ignores a very great part of these affidavits,

there is one statement which distresses me very greatly. That a

citizen would sign his name in affidavit form and say to the

effect.... I haven't got the affidavit in front of me but we

all know the quotation that has been mentioned many times in

debate: "If anything is said outside this room, I will deny

everything." I don't think I would forget after 18 years, never

mind 18 months, if I had a confidential conversation with

somebody and the parting shot from the other party was that if

I ever said anything outside these four walls he would deny

everything. Again, regardless of whether you're talking about

chickens or eggs or the future of Canada, I think it's a little

difficult to convince anyone that an individual would make such

an accusation in affidavit form if he didn't clearly remember

that that was said.

I think it's a very sad day in this House that we should

have to be debating such a crucial matter, namely an accusation

against the Premier of this province of lying. I have tried

throughout the last week or 10 days to listen to both sides of

the argument. My only conclusion today, in the light of the

Premier's feeling that the matter can be left where it is,

leaves me no alternative but to speak in the terms I've done.

In this last moment, I hope the Premier will still

reconsider.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I rise to reply more out of respect for

the personal relationship I have with that Member, although we

do not share the same philosophy. He and I have shared many

private conversations over the years.

I want to say first of all that the Member (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) who left the House today made a significant

statement. He said "the accuracy of impression" — the first

time he has alluded to that particular phrase. I think it's

significant that he chose it carefully today. Then he wanted to

make a decision on the accuracy of impression, between the

accuracy of my impressions and the accuracy of someone else's

impressions.

It is true, Mr. Member, that traditionally in this House you take

the word of another Member. I have stated very openly and very candidly

on many occasions — sometimes politically to the disadvantage of my

party — my position, my attitudes, my feelings and my responses. Some

people say I am intemperate

[ Page

859 ]

in that regard, and perhaps they're right.

This particular meeting took place 18 months ago. It was

certainly called at my instigation, along with the Minister of

Agriculture, to deal with the report as excerpts have been

read.

It is true I was harsh with them by describing them as

acting like children, but I meant it. And, frankly, I mean it

today because in fact that problem is still being dealt with in

anger, with frustration and, as of the news yesterday,

counter-affidavits against members of the board — a

counter-affidavit attacking the executive secretary of the

board as threatening someone to withhold feed from a

producer.

Mr. Chairman, through you, there is a history with that

board, with the former administration, of personal intensity,

of statements made and statements denied. If I were to look

back on it and reflect, I would have avoided the

marriage-counseling role. But, nonetheless, I was there and I

assumed that role.

I have said exactly, in terms of the reference given today,

my impressions of that meeting. What I said today is a

continuation of what I said before. I don't know how many times

I have to say it. But I say again that the statements I made

earlier, and again on the radio station this morning,

stand.

I cannot believe that there is any political motivation in

terms of your request, although I have my doubts when the

request comes from other sources. But I tell you, Mr. Member,

I've thought about this a great deal, especially last night,

and I have decided that absolutely nothing would be served by a

legislative committee, or by a judicial inquiry, other than

having people come and repeat the same statements that have

been said over a period of time, coming to the same

conclusions.

Do you believe one side of statements, or do you believe the

other? That is really the crux. That is where everybody has to

make a decision.

MR. GARDOM: You're under oath there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, every time I speak in

this House I consider I am under oath. That's the oath I took

with my office on coming to this House.

Mr. Chairman, there is no fuller opportunity for discussing

the matter than right here. This is a public inquiry. That is

the whole purpose of the legislative session.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, through you, I know that no

matter what is said certain Members are not going to be

satisfied. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the same statements

will be made in one form that are made in another.

What does it really come down to? The decision comes down to

whether or not you wish to believe my statements or someone

else's. Now, I'm suggesting to you that in the final analysis

that's exactly what it is.

My statements stand, and I ask you to make your decision.

That is where the matter rests. And the people of British

Columbia will also have to make their own decision. So that is

where the matter rests, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Chairman, still the fundamental

question that is before everybody is as to whether the Hon.

Premier has acted beyond or has not acted beyond the powers of

the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act

and beyond the propriety of his office. That is the main

question.

If the affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon and the affidavit of Mr.

Unger are to be believed, the Premier has acted beyond the

powers given under the Natural Products Marketing (British

Columbia) Act , and very clearly beyond the propriety of his

office.

What has happened affects the good government of this

province. That is why it was suggested at this seat by myself

that we should have a public inquiry under the Public

Inquiries Act where there would be an opportunity for an

independent commissioner, the matter would be taken totally out

of the political arena, and witnesses would be called — and

that would be including you, Mr. Premier, because you would be

under subpoena, and you would have to give your evidence under

oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth. That is what we are not receiving in this Legislature,

and we are not receiving answers to questions, Mr. Premier. In

a public inquiry it would be incumbent upon every witness to

answer questions, and that is not what is happening here.

If you feel that you have been wronged by Mr. Brunsdon, and

if you feel that you have been wronged by Mr. Unger, why,

indeed, do you not take proceedings against them? If they are

lying they should be held to account. Make no mistake about

that — and I am glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

is making some notes of that statement.

Furthermore, if you think that you have been wronged by them

and they are not telling the truth, you have, apart from your

personal responsibility, the responsibility of your office to

see that they, too, can come here before the bar of this House

and state their own case the way it was given in affidavit and

be subject to questions from all sides of the House, yourself

included, and you are certainly entitled to ask them any degree

of questions you wish to.

This afternoon in the hall, Mr. Premier, shortly after the

hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was

ordered to leave the House, you said to the press that you

stated exactly what your

[ Page 860 ]

impression was. You remember, and you agree with me. The

Hon. Premier agrees with that. He said: "I stated exactly what

my impression was."

Well, I'll tell you what your exact statements of impression

consist of. In this whole matter they consist of pretty well

only two things. There was trouble with the marketing board —

that's accepted fact by everybody. And you said they were

acting like children. It certainly seems that they were having

all sorts of difficulties between themselves, between their

producers. Whether or not they were acting like children — that

might have been an extravagant statement, but probably quite

correct. You said that you asked the two of them to get

together. And you agree with that.

Now this boils down to your exact statement of impression. I

say what a miserable example of exactitude. You find a little

more exactitude in the statement of Mr. Brunsdon.

MR. LEWIS: Shame!

MR. GARDOM: For example, he remembers there was a meeting,

and he can say everybody who was at it. You did agree with me

in the House a few days ago that there was a meeting, that you

were present, and that the meeting was during the daytime. That

was as far as you would go with the particulars of that

meeting.

I asked you whether or not you were sitting in front of your

desk or leaning in front of your desk speaking to these members

of these boards who were sitting on a settee in your office in

front of your desk, 10 feet away, and you didn't answer

that.

I also asked you whether the Minister of Agriculture was on

your right, so he would obviously be within earshot, unless the

poor fellow needs an ear trumpet. You didn't answer that

either.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How could anybody remember that after a

year-and-a-half?

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Attorney-General. You

asked me a perfectly valid question. When you are saying

"anybody," are you referring to the Premier or the

Minister of Agriculture? I'll take them one by one.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Especially the Premier. He's probably

had 2,500 meetings in his office.

MR. GARDOM: All right. He's had a lot of meetings, and he's

been a busy man. I'll tell you why, Mr. Attorney-General, this

would be vivid in the recollection of the Hon. Premier, Mr.

Chairman.

It would be vivid because this was the very first time this Egg Marketing Board

thing started to spill over the top. Kovachich was grossly upset. He was facing

a $21,000 legitimate legal levy and he ended up with a $7,500 legal levy. He

was a strong supporter of the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) over here.

He was a strong NDPer. He certainly got favourable treatment.

You can't tell me that the first time the Premier of the

province, after he'd been elected, knowing his problems with

the marketing boards, knowing in his view that they were acting

like children — he had all of them in front of him — forgets

that he says to Mr. Brunsdon that he would deny everything when

he got out of his office. If you're going to suggest to me that

he wouldn't remember that, that's hogwash!

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: Absolute hogwash!

Here's some of the exactitude on the other side. Here's some

of the exactitude. You got the exactitude by the affidavit of

Mr. Brunsdon. I'm not going to go through this again, but his

statements are very dramatically laid down. They're in

quotation. "There will be no court case against Mr. Sy

Kovachich," said Mr. Barrett. Did you or did you not say

that, or don't you remember?

Now, you've got an alternative there. You say, fine, there's

no need for an inquiry. You're answering questions in here.

This is the highest court of the land. I agree with you. This

is the highest court of the land, but you're not answering

questions.

"There will be no court case against Sy Kovachich." Did you

say it? Didn't you say it? Or don't you remember? Or did you

say something differently?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It wasn't on tape.

MR. GARDOM: It's too bad it wasn't, I guess, eh? I don't

know.

You further said to the board, who were sitting on the

settee in front of you, and you're the Premier of the province,

that the charges against Kovachich must be substantially

reduced and if they're not reduced you're going to break

them. Well, really and truly, you're the chief executive officer

of the Province of British Columbia. You've just come to power.

You've got an enormous mandate here. What you say pretty well

goes in this province until the next general election, and you

don't think that these fellows won't remember that. I don't

think for one moment that you didn't make that statement, Mr.

Premier. No way!

And then this "kicking" suggestion. Well, that to me sounds just a little like

vintage Barrett. It really does. That does sound like you, you know. It does

sound like you. If you didn't quite use those words, you might have used something

else. But that does sound like vintage Barrett. No question of a doubt

[ Page

861 ]

about that.

But you can always ask the leader of the Conservative Party

(Mr. Wallace). He said: "If anyone said 'if anything is said

outside this office, I'll deny every word I said,' I'll tell

you that would be very, very vivid in my recollection."

So are you saying today that you don't remember saying it?

Are you denying saying it? Or are you admitting saying it?

You've really only got one of the three courses. It seems very

odd to me that the Minister of Agriculture.... You see, here

again is a statement of exactitude in this affidavit. I'm not

going to read the affidavit of Mr. Unger, but there are similar

statements of exactitude. Mr. Unger's affidavit corroborates

Mr. Brunsdon's.

Now, this meeting took about 45 minutes, so we've got

another corroborative fact. They were there. There was a

meeting. We know there was a meeting. The things are starting

to fall into place. The crossword puzzle is starting to fall

into place.

Now, you said yourself, as did the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich), that this was an emotional situation. It

was, and it was obviously a very, very emotional situation. It

was emotional for a lot of reasons.

Kovachich has $21,000 worth of claim against him. You have

decided the marketing boards are acting like children. They are

all there in front of you and you are going to hammer out an

agreement. I'll say it was an emotional situation!

These fellows were at the end of the stick, and they were

watching you, and they received the full force of your emotion,

which can be considerable. Witness what happens in this House.

When you give a great speech in this House the rafters ring.

You've got the capacity for emotion — make no mistake of

that.

You know why I'm saying this? Because the fact that it was

an emotional situation illustrates — clearly illustrates — that

this would remain indelibly in the memory of these people; and

it's done that. It has remained indelibly in the minds of Mr.

Brunsdon and in the mind of Mr. Unger.

Now another exactitude: we have something on oath. Legally

you don't have to take any affidavits or statutory

declarations, I know that. I say that ethically you would have

to in this case, but that's up to you to m