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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 875 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill 50). Mr.

Cummings.

Introduction and first reading — 876

An Act to Amend the British Columbia School Trustees

Association and Corporation Act (Bill 51). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 876

Parents Collective Bargaining Rights Act (Bill 68). Ms.

Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 876

Oral Questions

Lack of trained personnel for B.C. ferries. Mr. Bennett — 876

ICBC capital cost expenditures. Mr. Gardom — 876

Bids on construction of new ferries. Mr. Wallace — 876

Value of Dunhill assets. Mr. L.A. Williams — 877

Filing log books of government aircraft. Mr. Fraser — 877

Difficulties re opening of UVic law school. Mr. McGeer — 877

Sale of ICBC insurance by credit unions, banks, trust

companies. Mr. Curtis — 877

Date for construction of Fraser Valley college. Mr. Schroeder — 877

Talks with BCHA and RNABC following strike vote. Mr. Wallace — 877

Safeguards re removal of Jordan River Hydro

installation. Mr. McClelland — 878

Establishment of trading corporation for export of B.C. natural products. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 878

Manner of bringing Penticton into Okanagan Regional

College. Mrs. Jordan — 878

Distribution of copies of insurance policies. Mr. McGeer — 879

Provincial government submission to NEB hearings on oil export. Mr. Curtis

— 879

Availability of information re insurance policies. Mr.

L.A. Williams — 879

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates. Hon. Mr. Lea — 879

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 883

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 884

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 884

Mr. Bennett — 886

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 886

Mr. Dent — 886

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 886

Mr. L.A. Williams — 886

Mr. McGeer — 889

Mr. L.A. Williams — 889

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 889

Mr. Gibson — 890

Mr. Chabot — 891

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 892

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 892

Privilege Use of unparliamentary language. Mr. Chairman — 893

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 893

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 893

Mr. Speaker — 894

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 894

Mr. Speaker — 895

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 895

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates. Mr. McGeer — 895

Mr. Phillips — 896

Division — 899

Mr. Phillips — 899

Mr. Bennett — 900

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 900

Mr. Phillips — 901

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 901

Mr. McClelland — 902

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 903

Mr. Fraser — 904

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 904

Mr. Morrison — 904

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 905

Mr. Bennett — 905

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 905

Mr. McGeer — 905

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 906

Mr. McGeer — 907

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 907

Mr. Gardom — 907

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 910

Mr. Gibson — 910

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 912

Mr. Phillips — 912

Motions No. 19. Recognition of Mr. Willard Ireland — 913

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 913

Mr. Bennett — 913

Mr. McGeer — 913

Mr. Curtis — 913

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 914

Hon. Mr. Hall — 914

Mr. Speaker — 914

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

it's with a great deal of pleasure that I ask the House to

welcome on the floor of the chamber today a distinguished

former Member, who is here today doing something he's never

done before, and that is to be seen but not heard in this

chamber. I'm a little concerned; he hasn't promised that he

won't quietly heckle the Liberals.

He was elected, Mr. Speaker, in 1953 in Lillooet. He was

re-elected in 1960 and 1963 on the North Shore with Ray

Perreault in a riding that now includes North

Vancouver–Capilano. I was afraid at first that his purpose in

coming here today may have been to angle for the nomination in

that riding. I'm going to try and persuade him to go next door

to Seymour.

The very friendly reception that he has had in Victoria —

last night we ran into the hon. former Premier, Mr. W.A.C.

Bennett; and there was a very warm welcome today as well by

Premier Barrett — this is to me a living example of the

comradeship of the chamber and the respect in which this Member

is held.

So, with honour and warmth in my heart, I ask this House to

welcome, with his wife, my father, Gordon Gibson.

MR. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my

words of welcome too, but I can't believe that the Hon. Member

will be completely silent. I went over to say hello to him and

I checked to see if he had any envelopes with him, but I

couldn't find any. So there's almost a sure chance that there

won't be a speech.

As many of you recall, the Member gave his speeches off the

back of an envelope, crushed them all up, then threw them over

his shoulder; and there was usually a very large pile of

envelopes behind him when he spoke.

Gordon Gibson, when he was a Member here, was very well

loved and very well admired, but the most common thing I

remember being said about Gordon, any time he got up to speak,

was a simple word from all sides of the House — "duck!"

(Laughter.) It's with that that I remember him. And I'd like to

inform his son that he was elected in 1960, as I recall, not

MR. GIBSON: Oh no, both.

MR. SPEAKER: Also in 1953, when he defeated me 30 days after

I'd won. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonetheless, the Member has been away from this House

too long, and we're very, very pleased to see him back with us today.

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

we've got a couple in the gallery from that playground of British Columbia,

the east Kootenays: Mr. and Mrs. Zac from Kimberley.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker,

in the gallery today, there are a group of students from a high

school in my riding. They're here today with their teachers,

Mr. Johnston and Mr. Edgar, and I'd like the House to make them

feel welcome.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries

today we have a delegation from Richmond: Mr. Joel Groberman,

our municipal solicitor; Mr. Jack Brooks, our municipal

engineer; and Mayor Gilbert Blair from Richmond. I hope that we

can welcome them here today.

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

like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that my

in-laws are in the gallery today. I believe this is their first

visit to the Legislative Assembly. I would suggest that one

beware of my father-in-law; he is an outstanding gin rummy

player, as I learned to my regret last night.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome

a group of students from Mary Hill Junior Secondary School from

the constituency of Coquitlam.

Mr. Speaker, today is another very important day, and it's a

day that I think is especially well marked by the fact that

Gordon Gibson Sr. Is here. He's been through a number of

similar occasions when we've paid tribute to the same man.

Of course, it's our senior clerk; it's Ned DeBeck's birthday

today and he's 91 years old. Ned is 49.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): We'd just like,

Mr. Speaker, to give our best wishes to Ned DeBeck, and here's

where I disagree today with the Premier today. I thought he was

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure

also to join with the two previous speakers in wishing a happy

birthday to him for many years to come and our successors here

in our seats will be doing the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Conservative Party, I'd like to say what a stately figure Ned

is in this House. The example of

[ Page 876 ]

his record is something that we all try to emulate. We send

and give him our very best wishes on this occasion.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

VANCOUVER CHARTER

On a motion by Mr. Cummings, Bill 50,

An Act to Amend the

Vancouver Charter , introduced, read a first time and

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BRITISH

COLUMBIA SCHOOL TRUSTEES

ASSOCIATION AND CORPORATION ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 51,

An Act to Amend the

British Columbia School Trustees Association and Corporation

Act , introduced, read a first time and referred to the

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

PARENTS COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING RIGHTS ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 68, Parents Collective

Bargaining Rights 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.

LACK OF TRAINED PERSONNEL

FOR B.C. FERRIES

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon.

Minister of Transport and Communications to do with the B.C.

ferries. Is there a lack of trained personnel in B.C. as either

deck officers or engine room officers for B.C. ferries?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): We're

able to man all the ships. We've advertised twice in the last year in British

Columbia, and once across Canada. We're quite sure we will be able to fill all

of the requirements from British Columbia. My answer is that to the best of

my knowledge there's no lack at this time.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental, Mr. Minister. You mentioned

advertising across Canada. Are you not also running

advertisements in Great Britain and offering to train these

personnel?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There were ads placed in the British papers when

the last ad that was placed across Canada received no applications of any kind.

But as I told you earlier, I am now informed that we will be able to fill our

needs from British Columbia.

MR. BENNETT: Just one more supplemental: are there any plans

to set up training facilities to fill these occupations or

these positions in the future so that we don't have to

advertise outside the country again?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Mr. Member. I guess you weren't a

Member of the House at the time, but I did announce that in

conjunction with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

training classes have been set up in nautical affairs in

Vancouver City College. They're just starting to do it.

ICBC CAPITAL COST EXPENDITURES

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

same Minister, Mr. Speaker: what are the capital cost

expenditures of ICBC to date?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got that figure with me. Would

you like to put it on the order paper? It's on the order paper,

isn't it?

MR. GARDOM: It's not on the order paper. There are 14

questions on the order paper and he hasn't answered one...the whole of the last session.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are two questions on the order

paper which....

MR. GARDOM: That question is not on the order paper, and the

Minister knows it full well! He's a Minister of evasion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is unparliamentary. Would

the Hon. Member please withdraw that?

MR. GARDOM: If it's unparliamentary I withdraw

unqualifiedly. He sounds like the Minister of evasion.

(Laughter.)

BIDS ON CONSTRUCTION

OF NEW FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the same Minister

how many bids have been received for the construction of the

three proposed new ferries and how many of the bids have come

from the shipyards outside of British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, it's my recollection

[ Page

877 ]

first of all that the bids were limited to British Columbia.

The bids are not open until Monday next. The time was extended

a week at the request of the bidders.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just asking how many at present.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got that figure.

VALUE OF DUNHILL ASSETS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

to the Minister of Housing, if he's up to a level of

consciousness today. (Laughter.) With respect to Dunhill

Developments Ltd., would the Minister indicate the value of

assets owned by that company which were removed at the time of

the purchase of the shares by the government?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll take that as

notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplemental to that question: if the

Minister has taken that as notice, will he also indicate

whether or not he will table with this House the appraisal

reports that were used in valuing the company?

FILING LOG BOOKS

OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Transport and Communications: when is he going to

file the log books of the government aircraft in this

House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Very soon now. I'm getting them all put

together.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: what is your

version of "very soon"?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They will be tabled before my estimates

in the House.

DIFFICULTIES RE OPENING

OF UVIC LAW SCHOOL

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): This is a question

to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

inability of the University of Victoria to open its law school

in September, partly for financial reasons, has the Minister

scheduled a meeting with the president of the University of

Victoria to see if there's some mechanism by which this faculty

can get started?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): There are no

financial reasons for the hold-up. I have informed the

president that the government is ready to consider what we hope

will be an innovative law school as coming under the criteria

for supplementary grants. So the government is quite prepared

to finance the school. Our knowledge prior to our recent

statement to them on this was that they were able; they had the

money in the budget to get started on it. I think there have

been other reasons for the fact that it has had to be

delayed.

SALE OF ICBC INSURANCE BY

CREDIT UNIONS, BANKS, TRUST COMPANIES

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and

Communications: could the Minister inform the House if the ICBC

has received a formal request or recommendation that credit

unions, banks, or trust companies, or all three, be authorized

to act as agents in selling fire insurance and perhaps other

general insurance on behalf of ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a pretty involved question. If you

don't mind I'll take it as notice.

DATE FOR CONSTRUCTION

OF FRASER VALLEY COLLEGE

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): This question is for the

Minister of Education. Now that the results of the plebiscite

regarding the college for the Fraser Valley are in, and we now

have learned what we already knew before, what is the target

date for beginning of construction?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't have the target date, but we'll

certainly be meeting with the people in the area. As you know,

the next step would be to set up the college council and a

principal. That would be the first step. I think the Hon.

Member is quite aware that it was necessary to hold a

plebiscite.

MR. SCHROEDER: A supplementary. Is it not a fact, madam,

that there will not be construction as such?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I believe that if we want to get it going

as quickly as we can we should be able to move without having

to use new construction immediately.

TALKS WITH BCHA AND RNABC

FOLLOWING STRIKE VOTE

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: is the

Minister giving any consideration to holding joint talks with

B.C. Hospitals Association

[ Page 878 ]

and the Registered Nurses Association in the light of a 96

per cent vote in favour of strike action at the Royal Jubilee

Hospital?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have

been briefed on the whole question, and I'm aware of the

gravity of the situation. At the same time I am not

second-guessing the hospital association, or for that matter

RNABC. I think that at this point I would be precipitous if I

entered the scene at this time.

SAFEGUARDS RE REMOVAL OF

JORDAN RIVER HYDRO INSTALLATION

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Municipal Affairs as a director of B.C. Hydro: could he

inform the House whether or not any precautions or safeguards

have been taken to ensure that the installation at Jordan

River, which is being disposed of as surplus assets by Hydro,

will in fact be removed for scrap metal purposes and not be

removed as a complete power unit ready for reassembly?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I don't

know what the sale terms were, but I can check those out and

let you know.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. Then a supplemental, Mr. Speaker, to

that: is the Minister aware of any involvement by the federal

Immigration department checking into the status of the people

who are working at that site?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No.

MR. McCLELLAND: Will he find out?

ESTABLISHMENT OF TRADING CORPORATION

FOR EXPORT OF B.C. NATURAL PRODUCTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce: could I ask him

whether it is his intention to establish a provincial trading

corporation to handle the exports of British Columbia natural

products, in particular those of government-owned

companies?

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

I am simply delighted that I didn't get through the session without at least

one question. I promise I won't take it as notice.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, the question is not that complicated. The Hon.

Liberal leader is always very precise.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps you'll be precise, too.

HON. MR. LAUK: I hope to give an answer, precise or

imprecise, without interruption.

I announced today a meeting of four western provincial

Ministers of Trade and Industry. We will be meeting March 18 at

the Bayshore Inn and we will be discussing the resolution of

the four western Premiers with respect to an industrial

strategy for the four western provinces.

In that agenda I've asked to be included the discussion of a

co-operative venture, perhaps in the form of a trading

corporation together with western banking interests, with a

view to forming that kind of trading corporation. Perhaps some

resource person in the nature of people like M. Jean Luc Pepin

and people like that who have asked for this kind of approach

in the past might be called to give some advice. But that is an

idea and a concept; it's not in any way an announcement of

policy at this stage.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm simply delighted to hear

that the Minister has learned the need of getting good advice.

Jean Luc would undoubtedly be an excellent source. But failing

success with the three other western provinces, is it the

Minister's intention to set up such a state or provincial

trading corporation for British Columbia exports from

provincially owned companies?

HON. MR. LAUK: I would say that's in the nature of a very

premature question. I'd have to give you that kind of an answer

after all avenues with the four western Ministers in four

western provinces have been exhausted.

MANNER OF BRINGING PENTICTON

INTO OKANAGAN REGIONAL COLLEGE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Minister of Education, and it is with regard to the

Okanagan Regional College. In view of the fact that the area of

Penticton is considering coming into the college, could the

Minister indicate whether this will be done by public vote or

order-in-council? I know that it would speed it up to use an

order-in-council, but I have been checking with the A-G's

department, and according to the Public Schools Act I don't

think we can avoid a plebiscite. But I'm discussing that with

him now.

Supplementary: would the Minister be prepared to keep the

MLAs in the area informed of what is happening?

[ Page

879 ]

DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES

OF INSURANCE POLICIES

MR. McGEER: A question to the Minister of Transport and

Communications: could the Minister tell us when the citizens of

British Columbia will be given the equivalent of an insurance

policy, so that they will know what their rights are under

their new insurance and what the obligations of the ICBC are? A

copy of the policy, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't checked. I know what they have

now doesn't give the full coverage, but it's been well

advertised and they circle what coverage they're getting. It

generous. I think we'll have to look at getting a booklet out

to the individuals.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental question

on the same matter: will it not be a requirement that you turn

out something more than just a booklet for the people who are

insured under ICBC? There will have to be a legal document

signed on behalf of ICBC, which is the contract between the

government and the people that they insure. It certainly can't

be on the basis of some booklet that's printed supposedly

explaining the coverage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how long the

Member has been associated with parliament, but there's

something called regulations which it spells out very

definitely, based on legislation, and the regulations are

passed by order-in-council. No matter what you think about

orders-in-council they're legal, and it's all laid out.

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT SUBMISSION

TO NEB HEARINGS ON OIL EXPORT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Premier: in view of the

fact that the National Energy Board will hold public hearings

into the exportation of oil, and that the hearings will include

sittings in Vancouver, does the Premier intend to direct that

the provincial government make a submission to those National

Energy Board hearings?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I've been advised that our

Energy Commission has already submitted in writing the

government's position.

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

RE INSURANCE POLICIES

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'd like to return to the Minister of

Transport and Communications in connection with the regulations concerning ICBC. Is the

Minister suggesting to the people of this province that for

them to know what their rights are, and their responsibilities

under automobile insurance policies, they have to purchase all

the regulations which deal with ICBC, which are about

three-and-a-half inches thick?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, the Member suggested there was no

legal document. I was suggesting there was a legal document —

that's all.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, for the

last few days of the debate in regard to the Premier's

estimates, there's been a great deal said in debate about

integrity — the integrity of the Legislature of British

Columbia. But, Mr. Chairman, the debate surrounding the

Premier's estimates has been only one act of a planned

political programme by some Members of this House who desire to

have power at any price.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, while you and I have watched

this debate on centre stage here, another vicious act has been

played in the wings. Some of the backbenchers in the opposition

have in the past few weeks been holding secret meetings behind

the backs of their leaders, and at the same time using this

debate in this House surrounding these estimates to cover up

those meetings and to cover up the purpose of those

meetings.

Mr. Chairman, have Members of the Liberal Party been meeting

behind the back of their leader? Have they been in secret

meetings? Have they been meeting with power brokers from the

other political parties to try to get together a new official

opposition in this House?

This entire debate surrounding the Premier's estimates has

been a cover-up to the most vicious political game of all

(laughter), and it's called "Carve up your leader." Mr.

Chairman, the last meeting was held right here in Victoria last

night between the Members of the official opposition, Members

of the Liberal Party and Members of the Conservative Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name names!

[ Page 880 ]

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, has the newly elected Member to

this House, the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) been meeting behind his leader's back at secret

meetings?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): No!

HON. MR. LEA: Who is the power broker within the Liberal

Party who has been going to those meetings? Is it the Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)?

What about the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey? Has he been

meeting? Has he been at those secret meetings with other

parties?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aha! The real leader!

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. McGEER: I would like the Minister of Highways to know

that I was at the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want you to state your point of order. Don't

get involved in a speech.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Minister of Highways — he's

making a speech.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, the Minister made a

statement about my being at a meeting last night...

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MR. McGEER: ...but, Mr. Chairman, I was at my son's 17th

birthday party in Vancouver last night, after which I attended

a public meeting on the University Endowment Lands. I think the

Minister ought to know that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order! I'm asking you to

take your seat. Will you take your seat?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was another Member wanting to make a

point of order. Do you want to make a point of order? Please

do.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I was playing

checkers with my daughter last night. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you got a point of order? I don't want to

know where you were last night! (Laughter.)

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

a point of order, I've already stated to the House, with some

embarrassment, as a matter of fact, that I was beaten at gin

rummy last night. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you got a point of order? (Laughter.)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I was at a quiet engagement

with some members of the British Columbia Game Guides and

Outfitters Association — with my leader, as a matter of fact

....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I don't think that that's a point of

order. That's not a point of order! Will you take your

seat?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm going to recognize the Member for

North Okanagan. Are you on a point of order? State your point

of order.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): On a point Of Order, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to advise the House that I was with

.... (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order! The Member for

Chilliwack. Order!

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I'd like to advise the

House that I was with those same outfitters last evening. I

don't know if that's a power struggle....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order!

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what's that old saying? — Me

thinketh...

AN HON. MEMBER: He doth protest too much.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes. All I am doing is asking questions that I

think have to do with integrity in this House. Now all I'm

asking is: have there been meetings? If there have been secret

meetings, who have attended those secret meetings? I am asking,

who are the power brokers for each individual party?

[ Page

881 ]

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

Williams): has he been to those meetings? Was there a meeting

last night? I'm asking who the power broker of the Social

Credit is.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Yes, I'd like to make

a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to advise the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) to get his information from Dick

Tracy from Little Mountain...to get it straight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, obviously there is a bit of a

stir in the House. What I am asking is: who are the power

brokers in each political party? Who is the power broker for

the Social Credit Party? Could it be the Member for Langley

(Mr. McClelland)? Could it be the Member for Langley who has

been attending those meetings? Has he been representing his

group?

Let me ask — is the Member for Langley the power broker for

the Social Credit Party? Is he a man who feels cheated? Is he a

man who has the taste for power? Is he a man who wants power at

any price? Why does he feel he has been cheated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order?

HON. MR. LEA: Why does he feel he has been cheated? Does he

know, Mr. Chairman, that he is more capable than his leader?

Does he know that? Does he know that that...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a minute. There is a point of order being

raised and I want to hear the point of order. State your point

of order.

MR. GARDOM: Unless I am incorrect, and I may be incorrect, I

thought we were on the Premier's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on the Premier's estimates. Will you

try and keep your remarks to the Premier's estimates?

AN HON. MEMBER: Filibustering the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that in some

corners of the Social Credit benches they are wondering why

they weren't invited to those meetings. Who was invited and who

wasn't invited? What was the purpose of those meetings? Was it

to set up a new political alignment in this House?

Now as I said earlier, but I think it was drowned out, the

Member for Langley is a man who is full of capabilities. He is

a man who has the thirst for power. He feels cheated. He got

beaten in a rigged convention, Mr. Chairman, and he is a man

who will try to get power at any price.

We have a Liberal leader who is unaware, I'm sure of what

has been happening in his ranks. I would ask the Liberal leader...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

HON. MR. LEA: ...to take a look at his colleagues and see

if they think I am just making it up. Just take a look at

them.

Mr. Chairman, I forgot about the Conservative Party. Have

they been involved in the meetings? Has the leader been

involved in the meetings? I challenge the leader of the

Conservative Party to deny he has been involved in those

meetings that have been taking place between the three

parties.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer!

HON. MR. LEA: I want him to deny that, Mr. Chairman. I don't

think he will. He's been in those meetings and I don't believe

that the leader of the Liberal Party or the leader of the

Social Credit Party are even aware that those meetings were

going on.

Mr. Chairman, for the past few days in this debate in this

House there has been a cleverly engineered....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. There is a point of order being

made.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure we enjoy the frivolity to take

the heat off the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. BENNETT: The point of order is this: we are discussing

vote 2 and I've heard no discussion of the activities of the

Premier or the Premier's salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find some difficulty in connecting all this

with the chicken and egg war, but nevertheless....

HON. MR. LEA: We are discussing throughout the

[ Page 882 ]

House Leader's estimates the integrity of this House and

that has been the debate. Again I ask the question: the Members

that I have named, were they at those meetings? I challenge

them to come forward and say they weren't at those

meetings.

I ask the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) again: were you at the meeting?

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer.

HON. MR. LEA: The final conclusion is this:...

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: ...for the past few days, the debate in this

House has....

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: I bet it isn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you state your point of order?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yes, Mr. Chairman. My

point of order is that I believe we are on vote 2, not vote 1,

and I wish, Mr. Chairman, that you wouldn't show your

partisanship to the extent you are at this particular time, by

not bringing that Member to order. Let's get back to vote 2 and

let's forget this diatribe we are getting from the Member for

Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, you've made your point.

MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that you are not enforcing

the rules of this House. You are being partisan, Mr. Chairman.

It's about time you stopped it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Member that....

AN HON. MEMBER: You get your hand off that button.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've made your point.

AN HON. MEMBER: You get your hand off that button.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Will you take your seats? Will

you both take your seats?

AN HON. MEMBER: You get your hand off the button first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to straighten up something here. Will you take

your seat? I want to make it clear that I don't want to be accused of being

partisan in any way. I've listened to debates on vote 2 that have ranged pretty

widely.

I am asking everyone that speaks on vote 2 to try and make

your remarks relevant to the vote in some way. That applies to

everyone. Will the Member that had the floor please

continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: In the last session of the House, there was

a considerable debate went on in this chamber about the use of

that cut-off button by the chairman of committee and there was

never any resolve at that time that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order right now.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it is a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Now it was never resolved that the Chairman had the authority

from this House to use that button. I am suggesting that you

don't have the authority; and keep your finger off of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's my job to keep order in this House during

the.... The Minister of Highways, please continue.

HON. MR. LEA: I believe that we have been talking about the

estimates, because we have been talking about integrity in this

House, and that is what the whole debate has been about.

MRS. JORDAN: Integrity of government.

HON. MR. LEA: It is pure and simple. We are talking about

the estimates of the House Leader of this House, and we have

been talking about integrity. We have been talking about truth.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that in the past few days the

debate in this House has been a cleverly engineered guise to

cover up secret meetings by power-hungry Members who will do

anything at any price to gain political power in this

province.

Those meetings have been going on and I again challenge the

Members who I have named to deny that they have been at those

meetings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member

[ Page

883 ]

for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman.... Is that a

point of privilege?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is. State your point. State your point

of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to state clearly.... It's a

point of privilege, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think there is such a thing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, what you don't think isn't really

important. You didn't bring that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I will, if you will allow me to. I want to

state very clearly that I haven't ever at any time ever been to

any kind of a meeting....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order. You will have

your opportunity to speak.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm having it right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you are not having it right now. I won't

permit....

MR. McCLELLAND: I protest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: If I rise on a point of privilege, I am

going to speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am asking you to take your seat.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if I rise on a matter of

privilege, I must do it immediately at the first opportunity I

have. I am doing it at this time to reply to a statement in

which I was named by another Member of the House. Now I demand

that opportunity to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of privilege or a point of

order. I am asking you to take your seat. I recognize the

Second Member for Victoria.

MR. McCLELLAND: This is the second time this week that you

have refused me the opportunity to take

part in this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That doesn't say much for your knowledge of

order. I want you to know that...

MR. McCLELLAND: This is a disgraceful performance by the

Chairman of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...you can make that point when you are

making your speech.

MR. McCLELLAND: A disgraceful performance by the Chairman of

this House. Disgraceful.

MR. McGEER: Any Member, when he is falsely accused, is

entitled to take his place and demand that the Minister or the

Member who made that accusation withdraw. That's quite clearly

what the Member for Langley is doing.

Mr. Chairman, you permitted that man to make false charges

to other Members of this House. It had nothing to do with the

Premier's estimates. And when the Members got up to ask him to

withdraw and to deny those charges, which they did

categorically, you refused to recognize them. Now, that is

partisanship, and it smacks of a prearranged speech.

Interjections.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Point

of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a point of order?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm on a point of order. I don't think

the two Members — the one for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

and the one for Langley (Mr. McClelland) — realized that you

had already recognized the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson).

MR. McGEER: A point of order is in order at any time. That

Member was on his feet, Mr. Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the issue that is before

the House is the issue of integrity in government. To that

degree at least, I agree with the previous speaker. I wished,

or at least I hoped, that he would address himself to it.

Mr. Chairman, on November 5, 1973 — not very many months ago — in that month, on that day, on page 1252 of Hansard a

Member got up in this House and made the following speech — and

it's short, and I'd like to quote a paragraph or two from

it:

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, no Member can assert names or

insults to another Member in front of that Member without the Member having

the right to ask the originator of the statements to withdraw. As I understand

our rules, when one Member asks another Hon. Member to withdraw it, it must

be withdrawn.

[ Page 884 ]

That's where we're at now.

That was the statement on that day.

Now, in terms of the case in front of us, if the Member comes

to the House on his return with a substantive motion, I will ask the House to

give leave to debate that motion immediately. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem,

but it must be clearly defined that the ruling on somebody's calling somebody

else a name is separate and distinct from the matter that must be either proven

or disproven.

The statement continues, Mr. Chairman:

For the Member to suggest that there is a vacuum is incorrect.

If that ruling were not there, then my understanding would be that any Member

could come in and call anyone a liar...

I'm quoting there, Mr. Chairman.

...and not have to prove anything. That would be a gross misuse

of the House.

If a Member wishes to make an accusation against another Member,

then right now, in this instance, the documents should be tabled so that the

accused can see the evidence against him, as is British parliamentary procedure

and courtroom procedure. I think both sides should file documents with the House

and I have no objection to seeing that, but I do not think the matter can be

left there. A Member's honour is really related to this. The Member did say

it was a matter of resignation; he demanded the resignation of a Minister. If

the Member is incorrect, then I think it's incumbent on him to resign, Mr. Speaker,

because he has laid the case on that basis.

Mr. Chairman, not so many months ago, in early November of

last year, there was a case in this House involving the

question of truth, veracity of statements made, a question of

honour, and the quote I read you was from the Hon. Premier.

At that time the Premier made perfectly clear that a matter

such as this should be cleared up. At that time he made

perfectly clear that there was a distinction between the

allegation of the truth, or otherwise, of a statement and the

substantive facts which led to the charge.

I find it curious, Mr. Chairman, very curious. And this is

my question to the Premier: I find it curious that on November

5 he had one understanding of what should happen — how clear it

was and how straightforward it was, and how, of course, these

things should be cleared up by way of inquiry — and in the

months of February and March, 1974, a total change has come

over him. And when faced with a case which is similar, similar

in many respects, a totally different approach is taken.

My question is this: Where is this major distinction between

the principle that the Premier enunciated last year in which he

described in glowing terms and the procedure that we are

following this year?

There is a question; there is a serious question of integrity. There is a serious

question of truth or otherwise of Ministerial statements.

Mr. Chairman, the situation we find ourselves in is this: we have no opportunity

to clear the matter up by way of either a judicial inquiry or a legislative

committee in the manner that the Premier himself in November of last year —

only a few short months ago — thought so necessary to protect the principles

of British parliamentary democracy.

I would like to ask him at this stage, Mr. Chairman, where

he distinguishes these two cases; how he distinguishes these

two cases; and whether he intends to continue to distinguish

these two cases.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I find this very

interesting to see the hypocritical attitude of the Member when

he attempts to suggest there should be a committee of Members

of this House when, as of yesterday, he's already on record as

having made up his mind before any such committee would exist.

He's already convicted, for cheap political purposes, the

Member whom he refers to, namely myself.

We did have the committee last fall — and what were the

results? In terms of your mind already being made up, as

evidenced by your behaviour yesterday, to come back in here

again today is sheer hypocrisy and grandstanding, in my

opinion.

After that committee sat last year, and after the vote was

out, it was immediately attacked as being politically divisive

on terms of a vote. That's how the opposition rejected that

committee after the results. They labeled those kind of

committees from that date on as purely politics.

Just a few days ago, the official Leader of the Opposition

said that a House committee would be divided on politics. You

don't want a House committee; you want a witch hunt.

My statements stand, Mr. Chairman, and my statement stands

as it is. If they want to continue to play politics and

obstruct the decent work of this House, let it be on their

heads.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for Victoria,

and remind him we are on vote 2.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are on vote 2 which was described by

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) as being one of

integrity, and being described by yourself as being one of the

"egg-and-chicken war."

Mr. Chairman, the question which I asked was not answered.

The point I put forward was this....

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've already made up your mind.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have made up my mind that the Premier

....

[ Page

885 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, what's the use?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What's the use of

naming a committee?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, because I would like, Mr.

Attorney-General....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Oh, another grandstand. Another grandstand.

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

one of these people who believe if one party in a dispute makes

up his mind, there's no need to go to court. The courts are for

no purpose.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A court in front of you?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A man who does not believe in settling

matters impartially before a judge, a judicial tribunal, which

could assess the truth or otherwise of allegations made.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is a political attack.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Straight politics.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, people can charge this as

being straight politics and a political attack, and the Premier

has done so because he has no other defence for his switch from

last year.

His position last year was clear. His position was: in a

case such as this, there was a need to let the sun shine in, to

have the scrutiny of a committee; to have people brought

forward to try and determine what was accurate and what was

inaccurate, and where the truth actually lay.

True, I believe that on that committee last year, as I

believe in the case of the committee dealing with the charges

against Mr. P.A. Gaglardi, there were members who voted for

partisan purposes. I believe that.

When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) spoke the

other day and described the division of a committee in terms of

partisan left and right, I stood up to declare that never once

had any member of our party instructed the Member of our party

who sat on the committee, namely the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). Not in any way did we

instruct him. We did not. We did not, because we realized that

to do so would be improper. We in no way suggested that he

should vote in any way, shape or form.

The same, I'm sure, is true with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

who sat on that committee, and once more judged the facts — judged the facts;

judged according to his conscience, and found that the Hon. Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) perhaps was in error.

Now the situation we have here is not something to be

laughed off. It is not something to be put down with statements

about cheap political purposes. We are long since past that,

Mr. Premier, and I believe it is time that we understood the

seriousness of this charge.

If the Brunsdon affidavit is shown by an impartial inquiry —

a judicial inquiry...if it's shown that Brunsdon was

substantially in error, I will resign my seat. I make this

statement here. I make it unequivocally, I will do that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's up to you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is important for the people of British

Columbia to understand this point: that in this Legislature

there is a degree of honesty and truth among Members, and this

is the very issue that we have before us at this time.

Now, the Premier has not answered my questions. My questions

are these: What is the change in his outlook between November 5

of last year and March 7 of this year? What is the change in

the conditions between that case and this? Why then was it

necessary to have an inquiry to protect the good name of

British parliamentary democracy, and why in this case has every

request for a judicial inquiry — impartial, outside of politics

- been rejected?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're playing politics.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You know that it has been rejected; every

member of your cabinet knows it's been rejected.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Straight politics.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Every Member of this House knows it's

been rejected; every member sitting in this gallery knows it's

been rejected, too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Straight politics.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's simple to keep yelling "straight

politics"...

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what it is.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...but the question is not going to go away.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's fine.

[ Page 886 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is not going to go away because it is

the duty of the opposition to make sure that this point of view

of these people, which were put forward in those affidavits, is

kept before you.

Mr. Premier, if you think it's going to go away, you're

wrong. This issue remains. I personally believe there is no way

that any Member of this House, any Member of the backbench, can

vote for estimates of yours until this matter is cleared

up.

I once again request, Mr. Premier, that you indicate to this

House what the difference is between this case and last. And to

refresh your memory I'll just read a few lines of that quote: "...I do not think the matter can be left there," said

the Premier of British Columbia on November 5, 1973. "A

Member's honour is really related to this. The Member did say

it was a matter of resignation; he demanded the resignation of

the Minister. If the Member is incorrect...it's incumbent on

him to resign, Mr. Speaker..."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he resign?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: "...because he has laid the claim on that

basis..."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he resign?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now, if I am wrong in this claim I will

resign.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you resign?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I am wrong in this claim, I state I

will resign.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You should resign anyway.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: All I ask is that there be a

non-partisan, non-political...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...judicial inquiry to determine that

fact.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this, I find the

Premier's attitude unusual because, after last fall's session

when we had the legislative committee on inquiry, why would the

Deputy Premier of this House introduce a similar motion for a

similar committee against the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips)?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Has it been called?

MR. BENNETT: That's even worse if it was introduced frivolously and

not to be called.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's further action pending publicly, I

understand.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand what public

action the Premier is suggesting is going to be called against

the Member for South Peace River, and I would ask him now to

elaborate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I understand, Mr. Member, that this case

is a matter of public discussion related outside this House in

terms of certain allegations. It is my information that other

matters are going to be raised, and I'll leave the matter stand

there.

In terms of that Member, Mr. Chairman, I say again that that

committee was misused last year after the vote. It was

attacked. It is just straight, cheap politics with platforms

laid out, day to day, in the newspapers, on radio, exactly what

the Member is going to do and how he is going to do it. If that

isn't cheap politics, then I don't know what cheap politics

is.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I would like to direct a question to

the Hon. Premier in his role as president of the B.C. Rail. I'm

concerned about a problem which is developing along the CN line

west of Prince George, and I will just read the first part of a

letter I received from the secretary of the chamber of commerce

in New Hazelton:

"Since February 15, 1974, one shift consisting of 31 men at

the local sawmill, Rim Forest Products Ltd., were laid off due

to an excess inventory caused by the railcar shortage. There is

dire concern by all involved that if the situation continues

this could result in total shutdown of the sawmill, further

affecting logging contractors hauling to the mill."

I draw this to your attention, through you Mr. Chairman, to

the president of the B.C. Rail, since you will be meeting with

Hon. Jean Marchand,, federal Minister of Transport. When you

are discussing the problem of the shortage of boxcars being

made available to the B.C. Rail, at the same time would you

take up this matter of the shortage of boxcars on the CN line

west of Terrace?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I informed the House

yesterday that the Hon. Jean Marchand has responded to my

statements in the House of last week. I expect to be meeting

with him in my office this Monday. I hope I am able to give the

House some full report of that meeting, hopefully with positive

results.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe

[ Page

887 ]

Sound): I am pleased to have had the Premier stand in his place today

and so clearly indicate his belief, based upon the recent evidence, that a

committee of this House could never impartially determine the conflict that

exists between his statements made here and the sworn statements made by citizens

outside this House. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the resolution

of this most serious conflict can only be brought about by a public inquiry

carried out under the Public Inquiries Act .

I can't understand why the Premier and the members of his

cabinet and the Members of his party who sit on the floor of

this House can't recognize the very serious, indeed tragic,

situation which is created by the refusal of the Hon. Premier

to have this difference of opinion resolved. It casts

reflections upon his office; it casts reflections upon him as

an individual; it casts reflections upon all Members of this

House.

The question, however, Mr. Chairman, on reflection goes much

further than just whether or not anyone has lied. I was

astounded yesterday afternoon to hear the emotional defence of

the Premier from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. I read in Hansard today that he said

yesterday,"It is abundantly clear that the main issue is that

those marketing boards have to be changed." Now, that's what

this Minister believes. Yet that's not what is said in the

sworn statements by citizens of this province.

We know that in September of 1972 the Premier received the

Garrish report indicating that changes needed to be made in

marketing boards. He had that in his possession when he met

with the Egg Marketing Board as a result of an agreement

between the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture.

The Premier has not denied all of the sworn statements of

people who attended that meeting. I hope the Attorney-General

is listening very carefully and I hope he has taken the time

since yesterday to read the affidavits, because I'm going to

refer to them again, and that he would listen, very carefully,

Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Attorney-General.

In fact, it is quite clear from the affidavit that the

meeting was called to deal with the complaints of one Sy

Kovachich, nothing more. That's all that the meeting was called

to deal with. The meeting was not called to deal with marketing

boards and their performance. The meeting was not called to

deal with marketing boards and their operations. The meeting

was called only to deal with a problem of one citizen. And the

Premier told that meeting that the charges against Kovachich

must be substantially reduced and that "if these charges are

not reduced" you will break him.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The members of the board who were at that meeting

asked Mr. Barrett if his order was a precedent that would apply to other egg

producers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You read that before.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And the meeting was told by Mr. Barrett,

"No, just this one instance. If any other producers get out of

line step on them." This meeting in the Premier's office was

called to deal with only one matter.

And it has also proven to be true that this was the case.

While there has been all the concern expressed in this

committee about the Egg Marketing Board and the way in which it

carries out its responsibilities, we know now that the Premier

had the Garrish report in September and October, 1972, and

there has not been one change in the egg marketing scheme in

this province, a change which the Premier of this province and

the executive council can bring about. They don't need to come

to this Legislature to change the scheme; they have that

authority as the cabinet of this province.

So with all this mountain of smokescreen that's put up by

the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) about

how much we care about the Egg Marketing Board, we now know

that in 18 months the government has not moved in any way to

assist the Interior egg producers or the Island egg producers

in this province. That makes it crystal clear that this meeting

in the Premier's office was called to resolve the problems of

Mr. Sy Kovachich, nothing more and nothing less.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Sy Kovachich. Samsom came later, Mr.

Member, and you should well know it.

This is why I say the issue to be resolved is far greater

than the matter of truth on the floor of this House. It would

appear that pressure of the Premier's office has been brought

to bear upon the Egg Marketing Board to resolve the problems of

one egg producer, to reduce the levy against him of $21,000

down to $7,500.

I think it's significant that sitting on the floor of the

House today is a man (Mr. J.G. Gibson) who was a Member of this

House when the greatest political scandal involving a Minister

and influence peddling was raised in this Province of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you calling this influence

peddling?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Influence peddling. Who brought about the

meeting in the Premier's office that was designed to solve only

Mr. Sy Kovachich's

[ Page 888 ]

problems? The Premier read from The Vancouver Sun

last night....

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

withdraw any imputation of influence peddling on the part of

any Minister of the Crown.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How can you, Mr. Chairman? I haven't come

to the point yet; I haven't even developed the argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would order the Hon. Member.... Order! I would ask the Hon. Member whether he is implying

or imputing to the Minister that he used undue influence in his

office.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's determined that himself.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm referring, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Are you imputing an improper

motive on the part of the Minister?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not implying an improper motive

on the part of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Of the Minister?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Of the Minister; of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm glad you raised the point, Mr.

Chairman, because perhaps it was one of the northern Members of

this House from Skeena (Mr. Dent), or from Fort George (Mr.

Nunweiler), or from Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) who brought

pressure to bear upon the Premier.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Undue pressure.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Undue pressure, that's right. Oh, I

forgot the Member for Shuswap, the egg producer. I wonder if

he's brought influence upon the Premier.

You know, Mr. Chairman, in the Sommers case the facts were

brought before the House, charges were made, sworn testimony

was available and there were months and months and months of

public scandal and debate in this province before the then

Attorney-General acted, as he was obliged to act under his

office, to bring the Minister to account.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Tell us

about a meeting you know about.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now, do we want to have this same public

debate continue in this particular matter when any question of

the motivation of the Hon. Premier can be resolved by a public

inquiry, which will determine whether or not the sworn

statements of Mr. Brunsdon and Mr. Unger are right or wrong?

That's the only way you're going to resolve this

difficulty.

We have the Premier in a position where it is claimed in

this House that he has lied. We now have clearly and implicitly

from these affidavits the imputation of influence peddling. Why

else would he call a meeting just to deal with Mr. Sy

Kovachich?

The Premier himself, Mr. Chairman, on the floor of this

committee yesterday afternoon, referred to the story in The

Vancouver Sun where Mrs. Kovachich said: "We couldn't get

any help from the Social Credit, so we had to go to the

socialists." To whom did they go to get their help? One man.

One man in the Premier's office.

AN HON. MEMBER: She didn't say that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: One man got a $13,500 benefit from that

trip, from that meeting.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on! Quote her correctly.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: These are the questions that are raised

implicitly by these affidavits tabled in this House and

unanswered by the Premier. He says: "I didn't order anybody."

He denies that. Does he deny that the meeting was called to

deal with Kovachich? Does he deny entirely the affidavit of

Brunsdon? He's had his opportunities, day after day after day,

to make those statements, but he very carefully avoids a

complete denial of what Mr. Brunsdon says.

This matter, Mr. Chairman, must be resolved. It can't be

resolved, the Premier indicates, by an inquiry by a committee

of this House. That wouldn't be impartial. I demand therefore

that he, with the authority that he has through the

Attorney-General, convene a public inquiry under the

Public Inquiries Act to have an independent

inquiry into this matter.

Let us have these people, and the Premier, and anyone who

knows about this particular meeting before this commission of

inquiry, under oath, and let's get to the bottom of it. If we

don't, I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this debate will rage in

this House and outside this House, and the future of Members of

this House, the authority of the Premier's office and the

character of the Premier himself will continue to remain in

doubt.

[ Page

889 ]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we've been waiting once more to

hear from the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep waiting.

MR. McGEER: We don't know what was said in NDP caucus today

and we don't care. All we care about, Mr. Chairman, is that the

Premier begin to level with this House and with the people of

British Columbia.

He stands by his statement, whatever that was. It certainly

did not deal with the individual and explicit points raised in

the Brunsdon affidavit and the three accompanying affidavits

that were laid before judicial officers in this province.

We have heard from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the Member for Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis) and the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) about how there had

to be reform in agricultural production in British Columbia,

and a suggestion that the orders given to the Egg Marketing

Board were for that purpose. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has narrowed it down far more

exactly. The meeting was called for one man.

That one man was a known supporter of the New Democratic

Party and of the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler). He got

consideration from the Premier's office because of his

political affiliations. No one ordered anybody to do anything,

but that man got a $13,500 benefit from the meeting. No

pressure was applied, but the outcome, which benefited one man

and one man only, made it impossible for the Egg Marketing

Board to function in the future in any kind of impartial

way.

How could a member of the Egg Marketing Board defend a

$13,500 favour to one man? What generality is there in that?

How could anybody defend it when that one man was a known

political supporter of the New Democratic Party? That was the

significant thing, not that he was a northern egg producer.

How many people benefited from that influenced decision? One

man. One man only. How much distribution is that? How much

distribution is brought about by that decision?

Was any action taken at the fall session of 1972, the spring

session of 1973 or the fall session of 1973 to help egg

producers in general? No.

The Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon.

R.A. Williams) every time he stood on his feet in this House

talked about the injustices done to agriculture all over

British Columbia to benefit the Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) and the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) as

though they were egg producers. Was anything done about that?

No ! All that was done was to bring a substantial financial

benefit to one single person, who was a known supporter of the

New Democratic Party. That, and only that, was done. Why did Mr.

Brunsdon put an affidavit before the people of British

Columbia? He was embarrassed and ashamed of the action that he

was forced to take. Nobody ordered anybody to do anything.

I haven't met a single person yet who thinks the Premier has

leveled with the public in British Columbia — not one. And I

don't think the members of the New Democratic Party caucus do,

either. The problem is that they're all in the same boat

together. That's what the problem is, Mr. Chairman.

We're into the same situation again this afternoon with the

speech from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). How

disgraceful — accusing the Members of the opposition of being

at secret meetings last night. One played checkers with his

daughter, another played pinochle with his father-in-law, I was

at my son's birthday party, and at a public meeting afterwards,

in case anybody doubts it....

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

How about the meeting before that?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's time we had some specific

answers from the Premier.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): We were out chasing

porcupines.

MR. McGEER: Why did he really call that meeting? Did he say,

as we have asked so many times — and which the Premier has

pointedly and repeatedly refused to answer — did he say to the

Members of the Egg Marketing Board: "If you say anything about

this meeting outside my office, I will deny every word of it"?

Did he or did he not say that to Mr. Brunsdon and other members

of the Egg Marketing Board?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just very briefly, the Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) reminded me that I forgot to

advise the committee as to my whereabouts last night. I had

dinner with a man who I believe is in the gallery, a member of

the press. We went to that distinguished restaurant, well known

to the Hon. Premier, Foo Hong's.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The best proof I've got is that I spent

the evening with Michael Wong, aged six, who showed me how to

write his name in Chinese.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The best thing you've done in weeks.

Mr. Chairman, now that we know where the Member was last

week, will he tell us whether or not he's been attending

meetings with opposition

[ Page 890 ]

Members in an attempt to formulate a new group in this

House? Have you met with the Members at all at any time and had

discussions with them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Every day with them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To discuss the setting up of a new group,

Mr. Member? You're denying that you've met with the

Conservative leader...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...or with others to set up a new group?

Is that what you're doing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes or no?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask Members on both sides of the House

to keep their...

HON. MR. BARRETT: How's the group going?

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...comments relevant to vote 2; that is the

administrative responsibilities and duties of the Premier or

the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Behind your leader's back.

MR. GIBSON: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier would

admit that he's been meeting with an old group in this House to

try and keep it together while this affair goes on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Very interesting. Very interesting.

(Laughter.) Very interesting.

MR. GIBSON: I'm sorry the Minister of Highways has left

because I wanted to tell him that last night I was having

dinner with my father...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: ...and that we met Mr. W.A.C. Bennett. Now I

don't know...

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many discussions did you have with

him?

MR. GIBSON: ...if you would consider that a backroom

meeting. We met him in the lobby of the Empress Hotel.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How close are you to a deal?

MR. GIBSON: We had an entertaining piece of irrelevant diatribe by the

Minister of Highways, as we have had from all of these Ministers, and none of

them have got to the point.

I'd like to ask the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman:

what's wrong with his Ministers? Where have they been in this

debate? Why didn't the Minister of Agriculture once last week —

not one time — say the Premier's telling the truth and these

affidavits are false? Why didn't he say that one time?

Why haven't the other Ministers waded into this swamp?

(Laughter.) Because they know they'd be up to their ears in

alligators, that's why. (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: They're staying out of this one.

AN HON. MEMBER: A pretty slimy mess.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope they've got better things to do.

MR. GIBSON: It's a swamp the government's created. It

certainly is.

AN HON. MEMBER: The quicksand is across the way, not over

here.

MR. GIBSON: Now last night the Premier had a very touching

windup for the afternoon. He told us about the poor little

socialists, and I'm sure everyone on this side of the House was

very touched. These are the poor little socialists with no

power in this province. They're afraid of everyone, and no

one's afraid of them.

These are the poor little socialists who muscled up to

marketing boards, who've taken over almost 20 companies, large

and small, in this province, who invite British Columbians from

all walks of life into their offices and then push them around — poor little socialists who sit behind expensive desks in nice

suites of offices — who proposed and who have the power in this

province to cripple our second-largest industry, the mining

industry.

These are the poor little socialists the Premier's talking

about. It won't wash, Mr. Premier.

The Premier says that he's concerned about politics, if this

question goes to a House committee. I wonder if the Premier

might take the opportunity to explain how an inquiry under the

Public Inquiries Act — perhaps headed up by a

judge appointed by himself — how an inquiry of that kind would

play politics. Take it out of politics, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's politics right now.

MR. GIBSON: And now this afternoon we have

[ Page

891 ]

another issue coming to the fore, brought to the fore by the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and

the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). It is

not just the first issue of political muscle against the boards

in secret meetings.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A little change in the script.

MR. GIBSON: It's not just the word of the Premier. No, the

story's unfolding, Mr. Attorney-General; as day after day goes

by there seem to be more things coming out.

What's coming to the fore now is the question of a political

payoff.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is your Act 2, isn't it?

MR. GIBSON: No, Act 2 was the broiler meeting, Mr.

Attorney-General. This is back to Act 1, October 26, 1972, when

the charges against Mr. Kovachich were reduced from $21,000 to

$7,500. During the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture I

asked the Minister how these charges were arrived at, and he

was remarkably imprecise.

To recall to the committee, Mr. Chairman, he suggested that

there may have been some fines in there and there may have been

some overage charges, but he wasn't quite sure just what it

was. He certainly wasn't sure how the reduction was arrived

at.

But later on in the testimony he admitted that he had

authorized the reduction; so somewhere in the mind of the

government there's the clear conviction that $21,000, as

assessed by the legally constituted Egg Marketing Board, was

wrong, and $7,500 was right, and that there was a difference of

$13,500 — which did not have to be paid by a friend of this

government.

I think, Mr. Chairman, at a very minimum, the House is owed

an explanation by the Premier as the man who, according to the

affidavit, directed that that settlement be made. Perhaps the

Premier might want to consult with the Minister of Agriculture

as to the kind of thinking that went on.

He said he told their lawyers to get together. How did their

lawyers get together? What did they talk about; and was the

final figure cleared with the Premier, or was there just some

kind of general reduction cleared with the Premier? That's the

issue that's coming to the fore this afternoon.

So there are three elements. There's the element of

government power being exercised in secret when, if they wanted

to cure a situation, they should have done it in public. Then

at the end of that they say they'll deny it if it ever comes

up. That's the first issue.

The second issue is the issue of the Premier's word and the

conflict between what's specifically in Hansard and the

affidavits of four respected British Columbians.

Then there's this third issue, and the Premier might perhaps

favour us with some comment on this third issue since we've had

so much difficulty with the first two. There's the third issue

of a political payoff to a friend of the government arising out

of a meeting on October 26, 1972.

MR. CHABOT: I want to talk about honesty in government. The

Premier a few months ago talked about a steel mill being

established in the Province of British Columbia. He made a trip

to Europe and came back with good news that he'd talked to

people in England and in Europe, and he was convinced that they

were coming back to establish a steel mill in this

province.

It was going to be a mini-mill and it would be only a matter

of time until this would unfold — as to its location, its size

and so forth. But he also said that there would be pollution

controls. They would burn the cleanest type of fuel available

in the province — and that is natural gas.

We've seen what has taken place on the question of natural

gas relative to industry in this province, because they

increased the price of natural gas to industry by 80 per cent

just a few days ago.

That's going to certainly hamper the ability of this

province to bring a steel mill in that will burn a clean form

of fuel.

Also, the Premier is talking about further increases in the

price of natural gas in British Columbia, not only to

residences within the province, but to industry as well. With

these constant statements and constant threats of additional

costs, I want to assure you that the optimism which was

expressed by the Premier last summer regarding the steel mill

is fading away very dramatically at this time.

He's talking about a doubling; he's talking about two

different prices when he was at the Energy Commission meeting

in Ottawa last fall. He talked about $1.35 a thousand cubic

feet, and since then he's changed his price. That's the export

price I'm talking about which is 105 per cent of the domestic

price.

Now he injects another figure. He talks about the Louisiana

charge which is $1.10, if I remember correctly — $ 1.10 per

1,000 cubic feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some of the bids have gone higher.

MR. CHABOT: If that's going to be the situation — if there's

going to be a dramatic increase to industry in British Columbia

— I want to assure you that the optimism which you expressed

some time

[ Page 892 ]

ago has faded, and it's faded very badly. I really don't

think that there is a possibility of getting this steel mill in

British Columbia at this time. Alberta's looking at the

possibility of establishing a steel industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: A small one.

MR. CHABOT: No, it's not that small; it's fairly massive.

They have large deposits of low-grade iron ore in Alberta. I

would suggest that the steel industry that will be established

in western Canada will go to Alberta because of its attitude

towards industry. It's a government that believes in attracting

secondary industry to its province. We see in British Columbia

a punitive form of taxation, be it on natural gas or be it on

minerals as well.

I'm wondering whether the Premier will tell us where it

presently stands, whether Hawker-Siddley is coming in, as he

expressed when he came back in June of 1973. He said a major

announcement on a deal with the government would be made within

a few weeks by the Hawker-Siddley group. That's June, 1973.

Those few weeks have passed by.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And they have expanded their services.

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering whether the contracts that the

Premier had in Germany have expressed an interest in

establishing a steel mill in British Columbia. Or have they

rejected their intentions of coming to British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, the Hawker-Siddley group did

announce a few weeks after my return from Europe an expansion

of their facilities at Surrey, and that was my reference.

The question of a steel mill is still uppermost in our

minds. It is still government policy to develop a steel mill in

the Province of British Columbia. The German contracts were

essentially related to technological skills, but the British

interest was beyond that. Now, we have not made a decision. We

are still studying the matter, and further contracts will be

made related to steel mill activities on our visit to Japan.

The Japanese are interested as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought that was a soccer game you were

going for.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, two days will be on my personal

business; for the rest, I'll be on government business. Part of

the agenda to Japan will be discussing their interests,

initiated in the previous administration, in the possibility of

a steel mill in this province.

We have not, I repeat, made up our minds in terms of size, location or involvement,

but we are seriously looking at a number of proposals.

I want to also say that NKK, I think it was, in Japan that

issued a release, and I'm sorry the Minister's not here....

There was no truth in that release in terms of an impending

steel mill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the question before us is

vote 2, the vote of the Premier. Earlier today, reference was

made to the speech yesterday by the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). The quote

is:

It is abundantly clear that the main issue is that those

marketing boards have to be changed. Change should be in order

to see there is some justice, both for the people who want to

get into production in this province and those who want to

consume the commodities they're producing.

Those are the final words of the speech of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources. This is given as the reason

for the meeting in the Premier's office some 18 months ago. And

yet, as the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams), the agricultural critic of our party, pointed out,

we have not seen those changes. We have not seen any

substantial change, all of which was within the government's

power by way of a proper order-in-council. None of that has

been done.

The meeting that took place, according to the affidavits

filed, dealt with other subjects. Let's go through the

affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon — the one that I believe, as I have

stated previously, to be true. He lists his name, and he points

out how long he was on the Egg Marketing Board, and talks about

the fact that he met in the office of the Hon. David Barrett on

October 26, He lists the people there.

But the first substantive paragraph of the affidavit is this

one:

"

(4) THAT I was personally aware on the day of the said

meeting that a court action had earlier been commenced by the

said marketing board against S. Kovachich for recovery of

marketing board charges from Mr. Kovachich in the approximate

amount of $21,000.

"

(5) THAT at the meeting aforesaid, I was informed by Mr.

Barrett in the following words that: 'There will be no court

case against Sy Kovachich,' or similar words to the same

effect.

"

(6) THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that: 'The

charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced and if

these charges are not reduced you will break him,' or similar

words to the same effect."

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

Member that these particular quotes have been read into the

record a number of times. I would say that it's tending to

become repetitious.

[ Page

893 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They may be repetitious, Mr. Chairman,

but unfortunately replies to questions on this subject tend to

ignore the critical and important position of Mr. Sy Kovachich

in this whole case before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. My problem is not to determine

what the Hon. Members should say, but simply that they should

avoid repeating things....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure, Mr. Chairman, and I understand that

on the 67th time you'll probably tell me that I've gone too

far. I understand we have precedents in this House on

repetition in committee.

"

(6) THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that: 'The

charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced and if

these charges are not reduced you will break him.'

"

(7) THAT the board then and there asked Mr. Barrett if his

order was a precedent that would apply to other B.C. egg

producers.

"

(8) THAT Mr. Barrett then and there informed me in the

following words that: 'No, just this one instance. If any other

producers get out of line, step on them,' or similar words to

the same effect.

"

(9) THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that the

said marketing board was to forthwith draft an agreement to

reduce charges against Mr. Kovachich and that the Premier added

in the following words: 'It has to be done today. Is there an

office they can use?', or similar words to the same

effect."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I cautioned the Member that he

was tending to become repetitious because these same points

have been read into the record a number of times. I would ask

him to discontinue reading them into the record.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, before you ruled me

out of order, I had read getting on for half of this affidavit — a little more than a third of it. Every single paragraph

dealt with Sy Kovachich, and that is the important issue to

bear in mind, Mr. Chairman.

Who was Sy Kovachich? He was a man who was producing eggs in

the northern part of the province. He was a man who the board

itself had levied charges against — regular charges that all

other producers in the province must pay. And if Kovachich

doesn't pay them, others must pay more to make up the costs of

the marketing board.

This is not the case of a government reducing the taxes of a citizen. This

is the case of the Premier having the charge against Kovachich reduced, which

increases the charge upon every other member of the board, and that is very

important to bear in mind.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That agreement was made between two

lawyers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why did Sy Kovachich get this special

deal? Why would they ask whether this was a precedent? Why in

this affidavit did it say that there was to be no precedent?

"No," said Mr. Barrett, "just in this one instance. If

other producers get out of line, step on them." Why was that

said?

Well, it's pretty clear. Kovachich was a supporter of the

Hon. Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler). He had influence.

He had special influence. He had the ability to have the

Premier of the province step in between him and a legally

constituted board and for political reasons — partisan,

political reasons — reduce the charges against him.

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

whether he's imputing an improper motive either to the Premier

or to the Member for Fort George.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can only answer that by continuing. I

have stated flatly, as a fact, that this man was called in for

this purpose and this was the reason that he got special

treatment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm asking the Hon. Member

whether he is imputing an improper motive to a Member of this

House, which is contrary to the standing orders.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if you don't know that I've

made such an imputation, how come you ask?

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

withdraw the imputation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will in no way withdraw the imputation

that Sy Kovachich was given a special deal because he's a

supporter of that man sitting there!

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

withdraw. I would order him to withdraw!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of

withdrawing something that is so blatantly obvious from an

affidavit that I have read to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Member

[ Page 894 ]

is talking about an agreement that was arrived between two

lawyers, and he's deliberately attempting to misinterpret that

and somehow leave the influence and cheap politics that

something was going on.

I demand that he withdraw it. It's a calculated manoeuvre;

there was no one out in the hallway before you spoke in this

House.

Members of the press gallery knew exactly what you were

going to do this afternoon. They knew what the strategy was

going to be. I was informed....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You are again lying to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: There it is. There it is!

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Members be

seated?

There is a report, I understand, from committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report that in

the full committee the Hon. Second Member for Victoria was on

his feet speaking, and he made an imputation of influence

peddling to the Premier and to the Member for Fort George (Mr.

Nunweiler). I asked the Member to withdraw the imputation. He

refused. I ordered him to withdraw. He refused again.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), on

the basis of the report from the Chairman, is he prepared to

withdraw the statement he made in committee?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I did not use the words used

by the Chairman, which was influence peddling, but it

accurately describes the statement I made, which was that Sy

Kovachich got a special deal because of his relationship with

the NDP.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member prepared to withdraw that

imputation?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing that

imputation.

MR. SPEAKER: I have the duty, as you know, and all Members

know, of asking you — and I've asked you. I now have to order

you to withdraw the statement. Is the Hon. Member prepared,

upon order of the Chair, and upholding the authority of the

Chair, to withdraw the statement?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to point out to the Hon. Members....

The Hon. Member has a point of order?

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the exchange I clearly heard,

along with the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), the

Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) call the Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) a liar. I think that should be

included in the discussion in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there is one question.

MR. BENNETT: I think the questions should be dealt with

simultaneously.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with you, if I get a report from

committee. Now, as you know, matters of privilege must be taken

up at the time, not later.

MR. BENNETT: I tried to stand, Mr. Speaker, but he was

reporting to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, no, excuse me. I had come back to the chair

and I'm listening to a report from committee. If you have some

matter that happened in committee, it must be taken up in

committee, then the chairman reports to the Speaker what has

happened, or transpired. I know nothing of what happens in

committee. Therefore, it follows that if there is some matter

of another word of heat being exchanged during committee, it

should be raised when we go back to committee. Then the

chairman will report it back, if necessary, to the Speaker. But

we must do things in an orderly fashion.

MR. BENNETT: The only question is, Mr. Speaker, the Second

Member for Victoria might not be here to accept the apology.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll tell you what I'm prepared to do.

I'm prepared to leave the chair, and have the House go back in

committee, and then if there's any further report I'll deal

with the matter at the same time. I think that's fair. Mr.

Chairman.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in

[ Page

895 ]

the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order. What is your

point of order?

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, in the heated exchange in which

discussion was on the floor between the Second Member for

Victoria and the Chair, I distinctly heard, along with other

Members, the Hon. Member for Fort George call the Second Member

for Victoria a liar. I think this should be treated at the same

time as the other accusation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I heard a number of things while we

were in committee.

I would ask the Hon. Member for Fort George if he would

stand in his place and indicate whether he called the Hon.

Second Member for Victoria a liar.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, I did not

call the Hon. Member a liar. I said simply that that's a

vicious lie, if that's what I heard that he said. If you care,

Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw that statement. But I would say

that it simply is not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He has withdrawn the statement.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's not a complete

withdrawal. He said that it wasn't true.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! It is not unparliamentary to say

that a statement is not true. It is unparliamentary to call a

person a liar or to say that that person lied.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Hon. Members will observe that it is a rule that

is set out in our precedents of authority, particularly

May, Parliamentary Practice , that when any matter

of privilege arises, whether it be a libel or an insult on one

Member or another occurring in the chamber, a matter of

privilege of that kind must be taken up at the moment it

happens, and it must be the first matter to be discussed with

the Chair. It cannot wait to a later date or a later time. It

must be taken up when it happens.

Last fall the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) took up a matter when

it happened, when a dispute arose between himself and the Hon. Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). It was dealt with immediately, at that

time. But we've been faced in the last few days by the conduct of the Hon. Second

Member for Victoria, who did not take up, at the time last week that he should

have, the question of privilege between himself and the Premier. Consequently,

he is too late to continue his course of conduct in the manner he is doing.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Please, I want to discuss this because it is a

serious matter of how we conduct parliament in this province.

Therefore, it follows that since this is the highest court, in

a sense, that reviews our conduct, it is important that we

follow these rules which have been established for centuries.

There is a way of dealing with this matter, but it does not

include continual defiance of the Chair or the authority and

dignity of this chamber. I call upon the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria, since he has failed to do what he should have done in

the first place, I call upon him now to withdraw his aspersion

against another Hon. Member of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I can

withdraw that statement. I believe it to be a true

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I must say, with all regret, that when you

assert a question of privilege and do not do it in a proper

fashion at the time you should do it, you are out of court so

far as your right to sit here is concerned, and I must again

ask you to leave for the rest of the sitting.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What a big surprise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Mr. Chairman, would you take the

chair?

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

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the Premier

was pleased or disappointed to see the Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) leave the chamber for the second

time for the crime of telling the truth.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: That was his transgression — and sticking by the

truth.

[ Page 896 ]

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

whether he, also, is imputing an improper motive to the Premier

and to the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler)?

MR. McGEER: I'm only stating a simple fact, and that is that

the Second Member for Victoria is telling the truth. Is that

out of order? I would hope it isn't out of order to say that

somebody is telling the truth in this chamber, Mr.

Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Let it go, let it go!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let them go, it's straight smear.

MR. McGEER: Surely that would be a mockery of

parliament.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): It's an attempt to

destroy this place. Go ahead, destroy it.

MR. McGEER: I think if there's any destruction, Mr.

Chairman, it would be on the part of the Premier, the Minister

of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), other

members of the cabinet, and the backbenchers of the New

Democratic Party, because affidavits...

AN HON. MEMBER: Vilification.

MR. McGEER: ...sworn by citizens of British Columbia have

been placed before the public, and as the Speaker has just told

us, this is the highest court in the province; the affidavits

challenged the highest office in the province. We have appealed

for alternatives to hear this matter. Failing that, we have

appealed to the Premier to answer the kinds of questions he

would be forced to answer if there were a judicial inquiry.

It is very clear that the Members who sit in this House are

not all equal, because when it came to charges laid by the

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and the government felt it

had some defence, they moved with a swiftness that was

astonishing. Similarly when the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) laid some charges in this House they were dealt

with with swiftness.

But when it came to the Premier, that was a different matter

altogether. If there's to be an inquiry of the Premier, only

the Premier can order that inquiry. The Premier is in a

conflict-of-interest position; he has to set up a trial of

himself. He's unwilling to do it. I think all of us can

understand his unwillingness.

If right were on his side he would have no difficulty at all in establishing

his position. The Premier is a superb orator; he could have demolished his accusers

in a matter of minutes. But he groans. Yes, he's got something to groan about,

Mr. Chairman.

We have no choice but to keep asking the questions here

because there is no other place where they can be asked;

there's no alternative. We understand that a Minister who is

asked questions is not obliged to answer them, Mr. Chairman.

But I can tell you this: we're obliged to continue asking

them.

No one understands better how to get headlines than the

Premier. No one understands better how to ask the same question

again and again and again. He holds the record: 67 times.

The Premier is a master of public relations. Never had

anybody who is his equal in British Columbia history. Never!

When the heats on, he's out usually getting his picture on the

front page of the paper. He's miffed because the Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), leader of the Liberal Party,

succeeded in that for telling the truth. I think when the

Premier was thrown out of the chamber for asking a question 67

times, when he was Leader of the Opposition, he was right too

and he had my support on that occasion. Mr. Chairman,

regretfully, he doesn't have my support now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody has!

MR. McGEER: The Premier has been asked by nearly every

Member of the opposition to refute or deny or agree with the

individual points raised in four affidavits. I ask the question

once more: did the Premier say to Mr. Brunsdon and the other

members of the Egg Marketing Board,"If you breathe a word of

this outside my office, I will deny every word I said "? Did

the Premier — yes or no — say that to Mr. Brunsdon?

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few words

that I'd like to say in this debate. I've sat by and listened

with a great deal of interest for the last seven days. But one

of the most interesting parts of this whole debate as far as

I'm concerned was the little speech the Premier of this

province made in the dying hours of the debate yesterday

afternoon; one of the weakest, lowest, slithering defences of

his own position that I've ever heard by any Premier or by any

Member of this House.

He accused then, and again this afternoon, the opposition

parties of playing cheap politics strictly because they are

doing their job for the taxpayers of British Columbia. He said

he had discussed with his other cohorts when they were in

opposition that they might be attacked. He said they were being

attacked because they were socialists.

Mr. Chairman, this government is being attacked because it is the government

and because the government has not done right by the people of

[ Page

897 ]

British Columbia and because there is doubt in British

Columbia about the integrity of the government and about the

competency of the government. That's what this debate is all

about. If, because we stand in this Legislature doing our job

as the official opposition, we are going to be branded as cheap

politicians, it's a new low as far as I am concerned.

I brought several matters to the floor of this Legislature

two weeks ago yesterday afternoon. I put a motion on the order

paper to have a royal commission inquiry into certain trading

dealings that this government has entered into. I endeavoured

to have my motion debated. What action did the government take?

They brought in a motion to have me censured before a committee

of this House. That motion was to be called a week ago last

Tuesday and now that motion supposedly is hanging over my head

as a threat. Why? To keep me quiet? The Premier this afternoon

said that this matter would not be further discussed because

there was going to be documents and more evidence introduced

outside of this Legislature. This has absolutely no bearing on

whether I misused the privileges of this Legislature or

not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to vote 2?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, let me inform you right here and

now that you have allowed this debate to range from politics

and accused secret meetings to every other thing in this House.

I have no intention....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would you state your point of

order.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes. I think the Member should be more

accurate than that. You weren't even in the chair when I was

speaking about secret meetings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I can only speak on which I

have knowledge. I would request that all Members confine their

debate remarks to vote 2.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the Member

for Columbia River withdraw his remark that I'm a dummy. I

think he's looking in a mirror. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! As I asked the Hon. Member for Fort

George (Mr. Nunweiler), did the Hon. Member say that the

Minister of Highways was a dummy?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not the Member for Fort George, and he was talking

about the Member for Columbia River. You're mixed up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm addressing myself to the Hon. Member for

South Peace River. Did he refer to the Minister of Highways as

a dummy?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I didn't, but I should have maybe, after

that speech this afternoon. I'd be remiss in my duties if I

don't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm satisfied. Would the Hon. Member proceed

with his remarks?

MR. PHILLIPS: There is a great deal of doubt floating around

British Columbia. I think the Premier or the Minister of

Education, who was the Deputy Premier at the time, should call

this motion or withdraw it off the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I pointed out that the Hon.

Member should confine his remarks to vote 2 and I would state

that any discussion of motions on the order paper is out of

order. I would ask him to confine his remarks to vote 2, to the

administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're discussing the salary vote of the Leader

of the government, and it is the Leader of the government who

has the right to take this House out of committee and to

discuss motions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: So, Mr. Chairman, even though he has seen fit

to leave the House at the present time and not listen to the

debate.... Are you trying to send me a message?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, I would say again to the Member that

any reference to motions on the order paper during this debate

would be out of order in that they are procedural motions and

have nothing to do with the business of the House. I would ask

him to confine himself to the administrative responsibilities

of the Premier.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) stood on the floor of

this Legislature yesterday afternoon and severely attacked the

press of this province, the news media, hotline shows, radio

announcers, press reporters, TV people — I don't think he

missed anybody — I wonder what that had to do with the

administrative ability of the Premier of this province. But was

he stopped? — absolutely not.

Maybe it's because he is Minister of Transport and

Communications and he wants to take over the entire

[ Page 898 ]

communications of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When a point of order is to be

made, it should be made at the time.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not making a point of order. I'm merely

pointing out to you the latitude you have given the debate in

this Legislature.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes — and I hate to

say this — you are very unfair to some of the backbenchers in

the official opposition. Do you have to be a cabinet Minister

in this Legislature to be able to speak on any subject you want

to speak on?

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

with his remarks under vote 2?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, this is the

second time that you have done this to me. When I was speaking

not very long ago in this Legislature and I changed my remarks

you drew me to order — after the Premier of this province had

given a 15-minute dialogue on the very same subject. I'm

getting sick and tired, every time I stand in this Legislature,

of being brought to order for things that you allow other

people to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair ruled the Premier out

of order just a short time ago. I think that the Chair is fair,

and I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put an X on the wall.

HON. MR. LEA: What do you want to sign?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder what would happen if

the Minister of Transport and Communications had his way to

free speech in this province? It would disappear entirely.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, stop talking nonsense.

MR. PHILLIPS: It would disappear entirely.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You talk nonsense.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not talking nonsense; you said it

yesterday afternoon. You severely attacked the press, severely

attacked the news media....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, would the Hon. Member confine his

remarks to vote 2?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not good enough.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. That Member must withdraw

the statement that if I had my way I'd do away with the press.

I demand you withdraw it immediately, because I would do no

such thing. That's a terrible accusation against any Member in

this House. I demand you withdraw it.

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

he imputed an improper motive to the Minister of Transport.

AN HON. MEMBER: You bet your life you would.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, you wouldn't do away with it. You'd take

it over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, I ask the Hon. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: You would. You've got the power now under the

Transport and Communications bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I have no such authority.

That Member knows it, and I demand he withdraw that statement —

right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's smoked out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not smoked out. That guy's smoked

out. I don't know what he's been smoking but I can tell you....

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

seated?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want the Member to withdraw that remark

right now. Never at any time have I given any such indication.

I wouldn't do it and you know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister be seated?

AN HON. MEMBER: More of your cheap politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would repeat my question again to the Hon.

Member for South Peace River. Did he mean to impute an improper

motive to the Minister of Transport and Communications by his

remarks?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask you the same: what

implication did that Minister of Transport just say when he

asked me what I'd been smoking?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[ Page

899 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: And I ask you to ask him to withdraw that first.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I apologize.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, I'll withdraw the statement then

that you.... (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: A rare display of mutuality. Would the Hon.

Member for South Peace River continue his remarks on vote

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll continue my remarks, Mr. Chairman, when

the Minister of Finance returns to the chamber.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Schroeder

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 33

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

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

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. PHILLIPS: Now that the Premier's back, Mr. Chairman, I

hope he enjoyed his tea.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Coffee.

MR. PHILLIPS: Coffee and tea?

I'd like to ask the Premier the same question that I asked

in his absence in the House. Does he feel that documents

introduced outside of this Legislature with regard to Dunhill

or Colcel will have any bearing on the fact that I misused the

privileges of this House when I asked certain questions in the

House? I'd like the Premier to answer that question for me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would make the same ruling

and that is that any consideration of the motions on the order paper....

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not talking about motions on the order

paper. I'm asking the Premier of this province a question.

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

his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the

Premier.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that is his administrative

responsibility, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to you, Sir.

It is his administrative responsibility.

I'd also like to ask the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would rule that the matters that

you've raised are relevant to these motions and therefore they

are considerations of the motions. Therefore any discussion of

them is out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll certainly abide

by the Chair's decision in that regard.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance and Premier, who

these days seems very insecure in his office, if he feels it

was cheap politics when the people of this province rose up in

arms over the assessment chaos.

I'd like to ask the Premier and Minister of Finance if it's

cheap politics when the "love feast" he said he was going to

have with business turned out to be just the opposite.

Is it cheap politics when the business community of this

province says that they feel insecure due to the policies of

the Minister of Finance?

Is it cheap politics that caused a breakdown in his

relationships in Ottawa? Is that cheap politics? If so, on the

part of whom?

Is it cheap politics that the British Columbia Railway is

going to lose money this year? Is that cheap politics?

I know all of these things are weighing heavily on the

conscience of the chief administrator of this province. But he

calls it cheap politics, because he's concerned himself. He's

concerned for his own ability.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm worried as to why you weren't called

to those meetings.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is it cheap politics when the mining industry

raises up in arms because of legislation that's introduced into

this session — a legislative measure that will ruin the small

mining companies of this province? Is that cheap politics?

Is it cheap politics when the forest industry is not doing

any planning for future development because of the policies of

this government? Is that cheap politics?

[ Page 900 ]

Is it cheap politics when the taxpayers of this province

want some answers as to whether or not there were

irregularities in the purchase of certain companies on the

stock market? Is that cheap politics on the part of the

taxpayers of British Columbia?

Is it cheap politics when independent boards who are being

threatened, or who have been allegedly threatened, by the

Premier draw up affidavits to the effect that he did indeed

threaten them? Is that cheap politics?

Is it cheap politics when the taxpayers of British Columbia

want to look at the log books of the new jet airplanes? Is that

cheap politics?

Is it cheap politics when people who are waiting for

assistance from this government to develop small industries —

assistance which was promised from this government — ask for

it? Is that cheap politics?

Is it cheap politics when the boards of education in this

province accuse the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) of

not being fair?

All of these things and all of these subjects I have

mentioned, Mr. Chairman, were not created by the opposition.

These problems have been created by the government in

power.

For someone to think that the government in power is

incompetent to run the business of this province — is that

cheap politics? Is that what the Premier of this province was

talking about last night in his defensive tear-jerker speech

that he made just before the closing of the Legislature.

Would the Premier explain to me if he considers that when

the opposition, doing their job for the taxpayers of this

province, has to put some pressure on him because he won't give

the answers, that is cheap politics?

Maybe the Premier would like to advise us on some of the

subjects that I have brought up this afternoon, and advise us

if the problems that he has created are still termed cheap

politics on his part.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, the

other day we were discussing the northern development of the

B.C. Railway. During that discussion, when we were talking

about whether interest would be charged, or whether there would

be loans, or whether there would be paid-up capital between the

agreement between the CNR and the B.C. Railway, we also touched

on another area. of boxcars. The Premier announced that if this

was the attitude of the CNR we may have to deal with the

CPR.

I'm worried whether we have had discussions with the CPR. I

refer back to articles last year where the president of the CPR

in a newspaper interview in Vancouver said he couldn't see

CP-NDP partnerships as likely.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which one are you quoting — Sinclair?

MR. BENNETT: Yes. I would question the Premier as to whether

he had discussions with other officials of the CPR as to taking

over the CNR's position. I don't ask this for any other reason

except that all Members in this House are in favour of the B.C.

Railway as a resource railway. We would hate to see this

development in the northwest of our province jeopardized

because of a railcar shortage and other problems. I would hope

that we haven't painted ourselves into a corner of alienation

with the CNR without having made arrangements to talk to the

CPR before we did it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thank the Member for the very valid

question. I did meet with Mr. Sinclair, and he did make those

statements to the press. I joshingly referred to them in terms

of saying: "Well, he can't roll up the railroad tracks and

leave."

The evidence that we have is that the federal government

wishes to pursue the agreement in principle that we've signed.

That's why the immediate response, which I appreciate and

publicly acknowledge from Mr. Marchand. You will recall that I

said I do not believe that Mr. Marchand is responsible for this

problem. I think the very fact that Mr. Marchand responded by

phone call directly to my office, the fact that he's coming

Monday — if I may use the euphemism — puts the thing back on

the rails again.

As far as co-operation with CPR since that particular

exchange, things have improved dramatically.

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to also question the Premier about the

fact that the figures of $340 million and $200 million have

been discussed. These are figures that are not available to the

Members of the House, although we do have the sharing agreement

between the federal and provincial governments. We have sharing

estimates of 25 per cent and 75 per cent.

Am I to understand that the province under this, for the

first time in history, will pay a subsidy towards the CNR and

their connection, that the money they pay, which is 25 per cent

provincial share on the Terrace connection, will be a

provincial subsidy to a CN line?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, you are incorrect. Well, the question

is one of running rights, in railroad language; it is a question of joint participation.

We're not giving up something, nor is the CNR. It is a matter of co-operation

between one public railroad and another public railroad. I just don't see the

whole question of "it's yours, it's mine," or otherwise; it's a matter of co-operation;

it's

[ Page

901 ]

a matter of joint use. The jurisdictional control over

sections is a matter to be negotiated.

MR. BENNETT: But it does become a question, because there is

a chance, as the Premier suggested, that it might not be

another public railroad; it might be the CNR.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then there would have to be another

agreement, obviously.

Let me make this clear. The comment I made about the CPR in

co-operation had nothing to do with northern developments or

the Clinton-Ashcroft cut-off, When I made the statement that

we would seriously have to consider thinking about developing

the north alone, as I said last week I was talking about us,

the Province of British Columbia, going it alone. Obviously,

Mr. Marchand doesn't want this agreement we have signed in

principle to falter, and that's why he is coming out. But if it

did falter, we would not consider going in with the CPR for

that part. What we were talking about was the Clinton-Ashcroft

cut-off.

MR. BENNETT: Then another question: if we went it alone,

would we have the authority to develop the Port of Prince

Rupert on our own?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we wouldn't have the authority on

anything off tidal, as I understand it. In my opinion, without

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) here or the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), it

is my understanding that we would only have authority up until

tide water. So the development of the Prince Rupert port would

still be a federal matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier has stated on various occasions in

the House that he would table the history of the trading of

shares of B.C. Tel and the dates the shares were traded. Would

the Minister of Finance table those documents this

afternoon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, I can read them to you

now; I have them in the book. Or would you like me to table

them?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'd like them tabled, but you can read

them into the record if you would, Mr. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll table both the Bank of B.C. shares

and B.C. Tel shares. I'll have the girl go out and photostat

them right now, and then she can distribute them to the

House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Premier advise me if there are any new developments

in the negotiations with Brascan with regard to the development of the Sukunka

coal deposits?

Are there any further negotiations taking place with the

British Columbia Railway for the extension?

Are there any further developments with regard to British

Columbia Hydro in building the hydro line down in the

valley?

Are there any further negotiations or anything happening

with the Department of Highways with regard to the highway in

that area?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we had a recent meeting with

the Brascan officials. We have set a target date within the

next few months to try to come to a final agreement. It is an

extremely complex matter. We have said that we are interested

in the project. We've been in intensive negotiations and we

hope to have a definite answer one way or the other at the

latest, I would say, by the end of July of this year. But it is

not automatic.

We have made it very clear that it's not a project we feel

is an absolute either/or situation. Both Brascan and the

government have serious concerns in terms of what kind of

partnership, what kind of development, and these are the areas

we're having very intensive discussions on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Premier for his

answer to that.

Would he further advise me if the development of a port

facility for the export of this coal is having any serious

effect on the negotiations?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not at all. At no time has the

Minister of Transport, Mr. Marchand, indicated any reticence

towards the development of that port. The problems have been

the environmental conflict as to the location of the port,

exchanges of opinions between this government and Mr. Jack

Davis (federal Minister of Environment) as to whether or not X

reports were prod