[ Page 677 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mrs. Jordan — 677

Mr. Gibson — 679

Mr. Gardom — 680

Mr. McGeer — 682

Mr. McClelland — 683

Mr. L.A. Williams — 684

Division — 687

Mr. L.A. Williams — 687

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 688

Mr. McGeer — 691

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 691

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 694

Mr. McClelland — 694

Mr. Curtis — 697

Mr. McGeer — 697

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 700

Mr. L.A. Williams — 701

Mr. Gibson — 702

Mr. Wallace — 702

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have with us in the House today a class of 32 students from Brooks Junior High School in Powell River with their teachers, Rex Revfem and Betty Williams. I ask the House to join me in — welcome.

MR. H. A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): They're not in the gallery at the moment but within the hour we'll have 16 Saanich Peninsula students from Royal Oak Junior Secondary School. I would like the House to acknowledge their presence.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(continued)

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

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would like to welcome the Premier back to British Columbia. I hope he hasn't sold us out. I do understand he enjoyed the conference but he managed to take an hour-and-a-half off at a very crucial time in the debate to have coffee in the press room. We hope that that will benefit British Columbia as much as it does the Premier's diet.

Mr. Premier, we're discussing the Minister of Agriculture's vote. While you have been away there have been some serious allegations made about this Minister's inability to carry on his responsibilities without political interference from your office and in the form of your person. As the Minister is aware, there are affidavits filed with the House, there has been a series of questions that have not been answered, and it is the intention of the Members of this opposition to have answers to these questions.

What is at stake, Mr. Premier, in regard to your Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is the integrity of government and the manner in which the word of a Minister of this government and the Crown of British Columbia can be accepted.

This has very far-reaching implications, because we abhor the thought of what we have apparently seen, which is: under-the-rug dealings and negotiations by the Premier; interference with the Minister's duties by the Premier; the putting of one of his own Ministers in an untenable situation where his word is questioned.

He's had to change his word and he's had to interfere in a duly-elected marketing board's activities on the basis of political muscle at your instructions rather than on the basis of....

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: And you're looking very well too, Hon. Member. (Laughter.) I would also remind the Hon. Member that we are discussing vote 3 and to address the questions to the Minister of Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Help! (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: I wish, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture was looking as well as you are, because this Minister has been put under an incredible strain. He's showing evidence of the strain. He is no longer confident in his commitments. What is even equally as disastrous as the question of the integrity of the government is the effect that this has had on other marketing boards and on the producers in British Columbia.

I would draw to your attention this morning the situation regarding the Interior vegetable producers as well as the vegetable producers in the whole of the province. This group of people are very much involved in the inability of this government to separate its political and partisan philosophy from what its responsibilities are as government.

I mentioned in the previous sections of this debate where the Minister had, through his party, got himself heavily embroiled in commitments to break the one-desk selling agency in British Columbia.

He also, whether it was his commitment or his party's commitment, became involved with the problems of the Interior vegetable producers where they were promised, as an executive, Mr. Chairman, before the last election, that there would be an income-assistance programme and that they, in particular the tomato growers, would be the first to receive this benefit.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has stated in this House that he makes political decisions and partisan decisions and that's his way. He has again entwined himself in a spider web of conflict between his partisan views and his responsibilities as Minister.

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

[ Page 678 ]

MRS. JORDAN: The authors, Mr. Woody, are the Interior tomato growers themselves. If you're interested, and it would be a very good thing if that Minister was interested in what the people are saying, he would go up to one of these conventions, as his colleague didn't, and explain to these producers why they were given partisan political commitments before the election and relegated to the bottom of the heap after the election.

The only association that Minister has with tomatoes, Mr. Member, is with those that are thrown at him by the small woods people and the producers in this province. I would suggest that the indications are he will become even more familiar with tomatoes, but they may not be of the best quality. We'd like to save those for sale.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, before the election your party committed to the president of the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board that there would be an income-assistance programme and they would be first on the list. They not only were neglected before their convention but they were neglected at their convention when the Minister didn't come, as he was expected to do, and by the fact that he again put his own employees in a most embarrassing situation.

Before the convention the Interior Vegetable Marketing people had received the word that if they wanted to take part in an income-assistance programme in British Columbia, they would have to unite with the Coast Vegetable Marketing Board.

Mr. Minister, that was not something you told them or your party told them before the election. This is another example of the arm twisting that is going on, if not at your own initiative then from the initiative of the Premier of this province.

It's extremely difficult to understand not only the type of arm twisting that's being used but the schizophrenic attitude in the arm twisting. The Premier's known to want to break one-desk selling in the fruit industry, and yet it appears through you and your actions with the Interior Vegetable Board that he wants to force another agricultural sector into a one-desk system.

This has resulted in fear of political interference in what is in fact in the best interests of the vegetable industry and agriculture in this province, and also tremendous uncertainty about whether the Minister even knows what his government wants.

Mr. Minister, this arm twisting on the Vegetable Marketing Board has met with a complete rebuff on their part in view of the lack of advantages that your people, or you as Minister, have been able to present to them. Why should they give up their autonomy; why should they give up their already lucrative market which they've achieved on their own?

All they can see with your programme is the centralization of control and an increase in the expense to the producer in the Interior, which you seem to want to subsidize out of the taxpayers' pockets for a philosophical reason rather than a practical reason of supporting an industry and providing quality, and hopefully reasonably priced, vegetables to the people in British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, the Interior vegetable industry is not massive in size but it's vital in importance. The tomato growers and tomato production are the basis of our Interior vegetable industry. You casually dismissed them during your own statements under this vote by saying that you'd sent them a letter about income-assistance participation on their part.

Mr. Minister, you didn't even send them that letter until the president and a strong member of your own political organization — and, I would add, an extremely fine man — got up at that convention and literally tore a strip off your inability to meet your commitments and the strong arming that was going on in their industry in order to even take part in any type of assistance programme.

That sort of attitude, Mr. Minister, coupled with the questions that lay unanswered before this House at this time, can do nothing but encourage more and more people to drop out of the vegetable industry.

I would like a commitment from you this morning, Mr. Minister: first, that if the rest of the opposition will demand it through you and in concert with the Premier of this province, you will clear up this tragic shadow that lies over this government and in turn lies over the people of British Columbia and which, in fact, is dipping into the pockets of the producers of this province.

The second point I'd like from you, Mr. Minister, is a commitment that you will meet your commitment to the vegetable producers as a whole in this province — and in this specific instance, to the Interior vegetable producers.

Don't just send the tomato producers a letter. You know, with the Canadian mails it could take years to get there. Get up there. Get negotiating. Get this programme into effect now. They see their dairy counterparts receiving their cheques; they want their cheques, Mr. Minister.

They only produce in about a five-month period of time during the year. They're facing incredible fertilizer costs, machinery costs and increased insurance costs, all as a result of this government's actions. Yet they see nothing but backtracking, a confusion of political webs and the thought of arm twisting if they're going to be able to have what in fact is their right in accord with this government's policy.

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

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

[ Page 679 ]

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

The potato growers: they want to know also, Mr. Minister, and we want a commitment from you, about what you're going to do in terms of detailed research in order that this industry can take advantage of agricultural land and climatology studies so that they can expand their industry. They want to know when you are going to make a commitment on the processing plant for vegetables.

I hope, Mr. Minister and Mr. Chairman, that we won't have to spend the whole weekend in this chamber to get some answers on the overall cloud of this government and on some of these specific questions.

I would assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this government must answer and this opposition is prepared to do its part to see that truth is brought before this House and the people of British Columbia.

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

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

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

The egg boards have been talked about and the production problems there, and the distribution of production of the broiler board, and there has even been a reasonable debate on the question of to what extent there should be political influence over the operations of these boards. These things have been covered reasonably well.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have been absolutely stone-walled on the basic question, on the most fundamental question that has come up in this debate: that's the question of the integrity of the government. That's the question of whether or not there's a cover-up going on here for things that happened in 1972 and for things that happened earlier this month. I'd like to go at it in a slightly different way this time and hope that perhaps the Minister might see fit to give us a little more clarification.

The apparent situation as it's been presented to this House comes in two parts. It comes first of all on the Egg Marketing Board and a situation involving Messrs. Kovachich and Samsom in October of 1972. There have been read into the record of this House sworn affidavits by two persons on the Egg Marketing Board who attended a meeting on October 26, 1972 — Messrs. Brunsdon and Unger.

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

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

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

So it seems pretty clear what happened at this meeting according to the affidavits, Mr. Chairman, that have been put before this House. And what happened....

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

MR. GIBSON: So an arrangement was reached in due course in an amount with respect to Mr. Kovachich. We don't have the Minister's remarks with respect to Mr. Samsom, but in respect to Mr. Kovachich an arrangement was reached in an amount that was sanctioned by the Minister. There was a reduction of charges levied against him by the egg board from $21,000 down to $7,500. No question of those details.

Now in February, 1974, we find affidavits to be sworn out which detail these circumstances and then we have statements from the Hon. Premier which are directly contrary to these affidavits. The affidavits, as I mentioned, state that the board was ordered by the Premier to do certain things and the Premier said: "They were not asked or ordered or suggested to be ordered to do anything."

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

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

So we've reached the point where there is an obvious contradiction between the sworn statement of two citizens of British Columbia who had responsible positions on a marketing board and the statements of the Premier.

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

[ Page 680 ]

these things. The memory of the marketing board member seems to be pretty good, and the memory, of the Premier seems to be pretty good. The Minister has been caught in between and his memory is not any good at all. It's been a very faulty memory.

That's the egg side. Now the broiler side. There's no long time lapse here. There's nothing about 1972 with respect to the broilers. The broiler question is 1974, and the short history here seems to be a wish to open up and enlarge Interior and northern quotas, which is very understandable and proper.

But then a meeting was held on February 5, and again the same thing. We are given to understand by another two sworn affidavits by two board members that there was more muscle applied to another board — exactly the same pattern that happened a year-and-a-half ago.

Then again in late February, we find these affidavits coming in one way and the statements of the Premier again exactly contrary.

The affidavits quote the Deputy Minister of the Department of Agriculture as saying that Mr. Barrett had ordered certain quotas to be given related to broilers, and the Premier saying in Hansard: "I did not order anyone to be given any quotas related to broilers."

We have the affidavit again quoting the Deputy Minister of Agriculture as saying that Mr. Barrett had directed that a committee of three be appointed to determine allocation of broiler permits on the basis ordered by Mr. Barrett, and the Hon. Premier saying, again in Hansard: "I did not direct that a committee of three be struck to allocate broiler quotas." Exactly opposite information.

Mr. Chairman, any evidence the House can receive on how to resolve this contradiction — which inevitably casts a cloud either on the persons who swore out the affidavit, or on the Premier, because these things are directly at odds and their memories both seem to be pretty good — would be a good thing, it seems to me, and it should be something the government would welcome.

Let's look at the persons at those meetings. On October 26, 1972, the persons at the meeting, according to the affidavit, were the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture, Messrs. Janzen, Unger, Wall, Morgan and Brunsdon from the Egg Marketing Board, and Messrs. Peterson, King, Pope and Gilchrist from the department. Of the five outside non-government persons at that meeting, we have sworn affidavits from two of them.

Let's look at the meeting of February 5. There were Messrs. McAninch, Stafford, Liedtke and Harbidge for the marketing board, and Messrs. Peterson and King, again, Mr. Wood and the Minister of Agriculture. Of the four outside persons — the four non-government persons at that meeting — we again have sworn statements from two.

Out of the nine outside people at those meetings, affidavits are available from four. Those affidavits are in harmony, and they all paint the same picture.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that while we have heard from the public members at these meetings we have not had an opportunity to hear in any way from the seven public servants at these meetings. The public servants perhaps have a better recollection than does the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Identical.

MR. GIBSON: Is there not some way, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister would find it helpful to his memory and helpful to the whole perspective that the public will have on this...

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

MR. GIBSON: ...to clear up the name of the government, to find some way that these public servants can give their version of these meetings?

Once again there is the case for a public inquiry. If there is not a public inquiry, once again will the Minister not do the simple thing and speak to his officials, who are immediately available to him? There is no problem at all in speaking to his officials. The Minister can speak to his officials in detail on this subject in the next 10 minutes if he wishes, and speak to those officials and come back and say to this House that his officials tell him that the account of the affidavit of the meeting of October 26, 1972, or the meeting of February 5, 1974, is correct, or incorrect, in this particular and that particular. Mr. Chairman, there is a bill of particulars here and it's very specific, and it seems to me that this House....

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

MR. GIBSON: It seems to me that this House has the right to an answer on every one of the points made — the very serious points which impugn the name of the government in these specific bills of particulars.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): We had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture would have responded to the remarks of the lady Member (Mrs. Jordan) and also the remarks of my colleague for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), but the questions that are still unanswered in

[ Page 681 ]

this debate seem to be about six in number.

Is this memorandum of the Egg Marketing Board of January 31, 1974, which says that the agreement with Mr. Kovachich was drawn on the instructions of the Hon. Premier, true or false, Mr. Minister? Was that agreement drawn on the instructions of the Hon. Premier?

Interjection.

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

The memorandum further indicates that the terms of the agreement with Mr. Kovachich were those insisted upon by the Premier. That is what the Egg Marketing Board says, Mr. Minister. Do you consider that to be true or false?

Mr. Minister, did the Premier say there would be no court action against Mr. Kovachich? Did he say that? Yes or no. Did that consist of an order to the Egg Marketing Board from the Premier, Mr. Minister? Yes or no.

Did the Premier say to Mr. Kovachich, and/or to the board, "I'll kick the 'censored' out of you," or words to that effect? Yes or no.

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

Did you set the figure, Mr. Minister, at $7,500 for Mr. Kovachich? Yes or no. And if you didn't set it, Mr. Minister, who gave that figure to your Mr. Pope? Will you answer that?

Did the Premier say, Mr. Minister, that he would deny everything if it was ever repeated out of his office? Did he say that? Yes or no.

You talked about political interference, and in the most modern edition of Funk and Wagnalls, interference is defined this way: "To intervene and take part in the affairs of others; especially to interpose oneself without invitation or warrant." Did that occasion in this particular instance?

Interjection,

MR. GARDOM: Oh, that doesn't give him unlimited powers though, Mr. Attorney General. You see, this is how you're missing the whole point of the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did interfere.

MR. GARDOM: I'd ask if the Hon. Minister of Agriculture is prepared to request that Mr. S.B. Peterson and Mr. Maurice King file affidavits, or give statements to the House in response to the sworn material of Mr. W.H.L. Brunsdon and Mr. John Unger.

It's very interesting to take a short look at the Natural Products Marketing Act. Under Section 4 of that statute we see that the "purpose and intent of this Act is to provide for the promotion, control and regulation in all respects of the transportation, packing, storage and marketing of natural products." That's the purpose and intent of this Act. The Act gives the power, and it doesn't give it to the Minister, per se, or to the Premier, per se.

In section 5, it says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may vest in any provincial board, "any or all of the following additional powers," under 5 (d), "to fix and collect licence fees, and to fix and collect from such persons fees for the services rendered, or to be rendered by the board, and to recover such licence and other fees by suit in any court of competent jurisdiction." But the power to vest in any board is that of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, not the power of the Premier. He does not have those powers at all.

Under section 9 dealing with regulations, Mr. Minister, it says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council "may make such regulations as are considered necessary or advisable for carrying out the purpose and the intent of the Act." The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make such regulations as are necessary, and so forth, for carrying out the Act, and may vest in any board such authorities and powers as are considered necessary or advisable. The power there to make those regulations or to vest in a provincial board authorities and powers are those of the cabinet — not those of the Premier and not those of the Minister of Agriculture.

The question was well stated by the lady Member this morning as to whether or not the government acted with integrity, whether or not the Minister has acted either within or beyond the confines of his duties and responsibilities.

The question is whether these affidavits are to be believed, or are to be disbelieved, or are to be tested in another manner. That has been suggested over here. We recommended that there be an independent tribunal set up under the Public Inquiries Act. That is why we have a Public Inquiries Act in the Province of British Columbia.

So far, Mr. Chairman, there has been no evidence submitted by the Minister which would contest the material in these four affidavits. But, in fact, evidence to the contrary. We have sworn statements, four affidavits — corroborative, essentially, of each other. The material in these affidavits per se has not been refuted by the Minister. The material that is in the affidavits has been supported by memoranda from the Egg Marketing Board that these agreements were at the insistence of the Premier. And the agreements themselves and the memoranda themselves certainly, without question, unqualifiedly indicate that favourable treatment did ensue.

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

[ Page 682 ]

Agriculture, to have an agreement it takes two sides not only ready, willing and able to agree, but freely ready, freely willing and able to agree. You have to have consensus ad idem or meeting of minds. And that's one of the tests and ingredients in determining whether or not there is any true and valid agreement, or true and valid contract.

But that meeting of minds, Mr. Minister, has to be arrived at without compulsion, without duress, and without improper pressure. Did that happen here? It doesn't seem, from the evidence, that it did. What happened seemed to be a situation of force feed.

Mr. Minister, it could probably still be argued that the agreement that was entered into was ultra vires, certainly ultra vires the Act because it wasn't one that was entered into freely and willingly, and perhaps it still could be subject to court review. I don't know; I say perhaps.

I say again, and to what extent, how powerful was this insistence of the Premier? Was it an offer that Mr. Kovachich and the board couldn't refuse? If that's the situation, isn't that government by godfather; and that's wrong. That is why the question of governmental integrity has arisen in this debate.

We can recall that when the Premier was dealing with the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), the Premier indicated the very high degree of propriety that he expected from his Ministers. He indicated and stated that cabinet Ministers have a very high and moral obligation to not only govern and act within the confines of the law, but appear to do so, and they have a higher and greater degree of responsibility than is imposed upon any Member of this Legislative Assembly. And they have to act according to very high moral guidelines.

I wish that the same test was applied here.

The Premier imposed upon the Member for Atlin the highest fine in the history of this province. He removed him from cabinet; he cut his salary thousands of dollars — $21,000 I understand — because the Premier did not conclude that the Hon. Member told the Premier the truth. And this is the issue here, Mr. Chairman! Who is telling the truth?

There weren't any sworn statements in the Calder case. There are here. There wasn't any corroborative evidence before the people of British Columbia or before this House in the Calder case. There is here.

The capacity to abuse power in the many statutes that have been enacted by this government since it has taken power, since it has come into office, have been criticized by the whole of the opposition and by the majority of the people in the Province of British Columbia.

You stated throughout "trust us." The opposition said throughout, "Don't take those powers if they're not going to be used." You said, "We might not use them, trust us." But the power that appears to have been abused — I accept the word from the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) — the power that appears to have been abused here didn't even exist in the statute. There is nothing within this statute granting that power. And still there seems to be an excess of power, abuse of it, and we consider it to be a very, very serious matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, but before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would again draw to the attention of the House standing order 43: "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House or of the committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech," et cetera.

And also standing order 57....

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, you don't need to read the rules of the House to me. You'd do very well to read them yourself and abide by them. You're the one who's being tedious and repetitious. We're dealing with the Minister of Agriculture's vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. And also to standing order 61 (2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." I would ask the Hon. Members as they continue that they observe the standing orders of the House in spirit. Thank you.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has been asked a number of questions during the last two or three days. He seems to have difficulty with his memory, and he's had some difficulty with his tongue. It involves the Premier as well. And, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how essential it is for you to read standing order 43, but I can tell you one thing that took place in this chamber before you had the honour to be a representative here. That was the time the Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, asked the same question 67 times, for 3 1/2 hours.

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

MR. McGEER: And I haven't asked the same question 67 times, Mr. Chairman. I can tell you that the standards that were established before you came to the House by the Members who now sit in government and ask you to invoke standing order 43, were established by them when they asked the same question 67 times. And you weren't here, Mr. Chairman, and we were.

[ Page 683 ]

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

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

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan): There is no hurry in this House when the matter of integrity is being discussed.

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

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

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

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

MR. McGEER: We are bothered about the integrity of Members of the cabinet who dearly wish to forget some of the things they did within two weeks of taking office. Many times those Ministers stood in their places and appealed, through us, to the public to trust them. Many times have they made insidious comparisons between the former administration that was closed in secret and untrustworthy, and theirs which was open and aboveboard.

As the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) so well reminded the cabinet Members, one of their number was dismissed. The only charge laid against him was lack of candour. Yet, according to a sworn affidavit, the Premier of the province promised to lie about any repetition of statements made outside his office.

The Premier, in answering questions in this House, denied the allegations in the affidavit. The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) once more summarized precisely the issue: the discrepancy in statements by citizens of British Columbia in affidavits sworn before authorities of justice in British Columbia, and statements of Ministers of the Crown given in this Legislative Assembly.

We have asked the Minister repeatedly to clear up this cloud which hangs over the Premier and himself and the government. He's refused to do so, pleading amnesia. We've asked him, as an alternative, to support a public inquiry and he's told us that is unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, this morning the Minister has another official, who was present at those meetings, sitting close to him. The Minister can consult with him about what went on. Earlier in the week he was too far away in Saskatchewan. He missed an opportunity for three running days to consult with another person who was present at those meetings, who was also sitting next to him — if his own memory was such that he could not give frank answers to this House.

Obviously, if one set of facts is presented in sworn testimony as these four affidavits have done, and another set of facts is presented by the Premier and Minister of Agriculture, we can't just let it go at that. We must seek better answers or opinions from others who were there.

There are many routes. The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has suggested the obvious and best one. But, Mr. Chairman, before we press in a more formal way for this, or before we take any other action in the House, we appeal once more to the Minister to give, us a frank and candid answer about what happened at those two meetings where these four affidavits have given one account of the events.

Mr. Chairman, did the Premier at that meeting threaten to kick the "censored" out of the Egg Marketing Board if they failed to do the bidding of himself and the Minister?

Did the Premier say he would deny that conversation if anyone discussed it outside his office? Did the Minister of Agriculture send a representative of his department to see the members of the Egg Marketing Board and persuade them to revise the figure down to what he considered acceptable, namely $7,500?

In the matter of just last month with the Broiler Marketing Board, were similar tactics used in which the Minister told the Broiler Marketing Board what their decision must be?

Those are simple, straightforward questions that can yield to a simple yes or no answer. Once more, will the Minister get up now and tell us "yes" or "no" to each one of those specific questions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now I would caution the Hon. Members that continued repetition under this section could constitute a violation of standing order 43, and I would make the point that while the Members are concerned about integrity of government we must also be concerned about the integrity of this Chair. Therefore, I must apply the rules as they are given to me.

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

[ Page 684 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's anticipation.

MR. McCLELLAND: It sure is anticipation of the worst kind. Mr. Chairman, I promise I will bring an entirely new subject to this debate. How's that?

We stood here and hoped this morning that the Minister would stand in his place and promise us that he would at least give us the assurance of an inquiry into the questions that have been raised; and to the shame of this House, that hasn't happened.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that there are some serious repercussions to this lack of action and this lack of answers. I will speak later if we don't get any more answers, but briefly I just want to bring a new item to the attention of the Minister; it has to do with a resolution passed by the British Columbia Egg Producers' Association.

The British Columbia Egg Producers' Association is in serious concern about the political interference by the Minister and by the Premier of British Columbia. I want to read to the House the resolution passed at a meeting held in Abbotsford, British Columbia, on the evening of February 26, 1974. The resolution states:

"Whereas the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board has adopted and implemented certain policies which, in effect, have resulted in preferential treatment and special consideration being given to Interior egg producers at the expense and to the detriment of the lower mainland egg producers, and whereas the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. D. Stupich, and the Premier, Hon. D. Barrett, have publicly denied ever using any influence, pressure or coercion on the board or any of its members to bring about such policies or such action, be it resolved that we, members of the British Columbia Egg Producers' Association instruct the board to: 1) recall any quota or permits issued to Interior egg producers since October, 1972, and make this quota available by purchase to Fraser Valley producers. Further, be it resolved that we instruct the Board to: 2) Return to the Minister of Finance such sums of money as have been advanced by him for the original purchase of this quota from the sale of the same."

Now what that means is that the actions of the Premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Agriculture have turned the egg marketing programme completely upside down.

Originally the Minister and his officials were doing a fine job. There was an orderly programme underway. The Minister was doing his job. The people had good confidence in that Minister, but the improper conduct of the Premier has undermined the whole programme. The situation is deteriorating, thanks to the Minister, thanks to the actions of thePremier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

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

First of all, it is not proper to accuse the actions of a Minister of being improper — or to say that a Minister's actions are improper. Also we are not discussing the Premier's estimates. We are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that you have sat through this whole debate, and even participated in it, and you still don't understand what is going on.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: All I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that the whole egg marketing situation in British Columbia is deteriorating at a rapid pace, and if that doesn't have to do with agriculture in British Columbia, I don't know what does.

All I want to say is that if the Minister doesn't take some action right now, if the Minister doesn't open up this whole question to some kind of a public inquiry, then the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board is going to go down in a shambles, the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board is in danger of going down in a shambles, and the agriculture industry in British Columbia will be in a shambles and could collapse.

That's what I'm asking and that's what we're demanding of that Minister. That's what the people of British Columbia want, Mr. Minister.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): It's understandable why there's some difficulty in maintaining order in the committee this morning, particularly in view of some of the remarks which have been addressed from the Chair. Talking about the integrity of that Chair, I might just say, Mr. Chairman, to you and to other Members of this House that it's no wonder that among the general public there's a feeling of dissatisfaction with politics

[ Page 685 ]

and politicians when you would deem to suggest that the integrity of that Chair is more important than the integrity of Ministers of the Crown of this province.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If they collapse, Mr. Chairman, your Chair and this whole institution will fall into disrepute. It's because of this that I must again address myself on a different subject than I've ever spoken before, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister.

I did speak yesterday about the broiler marketing programme in this province and I referred specifically to what the law prescribes. I suggested in those remarks that the Minister, in his discussions or negotiations with the two members of the Broiler Marketing Board, was taking unto himself powers that the law did not give him and was placing the members of the Broiler Marketing Board in the position where to accede to his requests would have been to oblige them to act unlawfully.

The Minister, in responding later in the day, indicated that he did not have before him that time the regulations which established this Broiler Marketing Board. I would like to deal with those regulations very briefly, because arising out of these regulations and the failure of the Minister to recognize their implications, he is placed, aside altogether from the Premier, in a very, very difficult position.

If you'll recall, Mr. Chairman, the Minister in his meetings with two members of the Broiler Marketing Board suggested or directed or requested or asked — I don't care which words the Minister wishes to use — that they place on the board of the broiler marketing organization two new members, one from the Interior and one from Vancouver Island.

I would read to you regulation 301. It specifically states: "There shall be a board named the British Columbia Broiler Board consisting of three members."

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, if the Minister now wishes to get up in this House and clarify some of the remarks that he made before, then I'm only too pleased to take my place. But I think it might be appropriate if he wait until I finish, because I'm going to deal with the memorandum that the Minister sent to the Premier, which does not make that clear.

There are three members of the board, and you can't do anything else about it unless you change the order-in-council. That's clear and I'm sure the Minister agrees.

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

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

In this meeting with the two members of the Broiler Marketing Board, the Minister also suggested or requested or demanded or asked — and I don't care which words the Minister uses — that certain additional quotas be provided in other areas of the province and that the allocation of those quotas among applicants be determined by a three-man committee.

I would refer you to division 4 of the order-in-council, creating this board and this whole marketing scheme, which establishes the powers of the board. One of the powers is:

"To require any and all persons engaged in the production, transportation, processing, packing, storing or marketing of the regulated product" — that's the broiler fowl — "to register with and obtain licences from the board."

The last of the powers given to this board by the order-in-council gives them the right to delegate powers to the extent in such manner as the board deem necessary, except that they cannot in any way delegate the powers to issue licences to people who would engage in broiler marketing and production.

It isn't a matter of whether or not the directors of the Broiler Marketing Board wanted to do something different or didn't want to do anything in the way indicated by the Minister. The fact of the matter is that the law of this province prevented this Broiler Marketing Board from doing any of the things that the Minister asked, demanded, requested or suggested. They couldn't without breaking the law.

Yet we find in the affidavit sworn by Mr. McAninch, exhibited thereto, a copy of a memorandum, dated February 12, 1974 — less than a month ago — from the Minister of Agriculture to the Premier of this province. The copy also went to G. Anderson, MLA, chairman, NDP caucus agricultural committee — that's the caucus committee — and to Don Lewis, MLA. I can only assume that Mr. Anderson is the Hon. Member for Kamloops and that the Mr. Lewis referred to is the Hon. Member for Shuswap. The other significant thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the memorandum from the Minister to the Premier has been signed by D.E. Lewis, Gerry Anderson and D. Barrett.

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

"Since the meeting in your office" — the Premier's office — "there have been several meetings among members of my staff with the caucus agricultural committee and with the broiler board.

"The following is a summary of the situation to date. In that you have taken a personal interest in these questions, I would appreciate

[ Page 686 ]

your consideration of the following points.

"First, allocation of production into the Interior. A three-member selection supervisory committee will be named by myself as Minister of Agriculture to oversee the selection of the 11 growers in the Interior."

That's a statement from the Minister of Agriculture to the Premier of this province which goes beyond the Minister's lawful authority. He didn't have the right to establish any selection committee, and the Broiler Marketing Board did not have any right to accept from the Minister any such direction or any such committee. As a matter of fact, it was contrary to the law for them to allow such a committee to exercise the function of selection.

But this is an agreement. We've now got government.... You know, we used to complain with the former administration about government by order-in-council. We've now got government by private agreement, Mr. Chairman, in defiance of the orders-in-council and of the statutes of this province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Shame!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It goes on: "The process of selection will be the responsibility of a selection supervisory committee" — a committee which has no authority under the order-in-council, which cannot exist, and which the Minister could not force upon the Broiler Marketing Board.

Then the other matter. The memorandum from Mr. Stupich, the Minister of Agriculture, to the Premier says in section 4:

"Broiler board.

"There are three members of the broiler board, all three of whom are elected at the annual meeting of the Broiler Growers Association."

That's in accordance with the order-in-council; that's the law. There are three and no more than three. The Minister then goes on to say to the Premier:

"In that the directorate will be expanded almost immediately to include two directors from the Interior, and in that any changes in the board's constitution itself should be considered at the May annual meeting of the association members, I would recommend that we do not interfere with the board itself."

A recommendation from the Minister of Agriculture to the Premier of the province that they stop interfering with the board in the conduct of its lawful responsibility and authority.

They won't interfere says the Minister in his memorandum to the Premier, because there are going to be some changes in the membership of the board almost immediately, changes which the board could not make, which the Broiler Growers' Association could not make because the law, the order-in-council, does not permit either the board or the Broiler Growers' Association to make any changes in the composition of the Broiler Marketing Board.

As I said yesterday, there is only one lawful authority to change either the composition, the responsibilities or the powers of the Broiler Marketing Board, and that's the executive council of the Province of British Columbia. Not that Minister, not the Premier, not any MLA in the NDP agricultural committee, not in the caucus committee — they don't have the responsibility or the power or the authority; it's the executive council of the Province of British Columbia.

What we've got before us now is a government that suggests that changes must be made in this Broiler Marketing Board, and a government which is unwilling to act in accordance with the law in bringing those changes about. A government and Ministers who would rather, somehow or other, make an under-the-table private agreement which would put the Broiler Marketing Board outside the law and the members of that board acting unlawfully. That's the way that the administration of government is being carried on in this province today.

The reason it is so important, and the reason that we must discuss it in this Minister's vote, is because it opens the door for the people of British Columbia to see for themselves how cabinet responsibility functions in British Columbia. And if this is happening with regard to the eggmen, what about all the other orders-in-council and cabinet responsibilities? They're all thrown into question.

The mining industry is up in arms because of authority which will be given to the Minister of Mines under legislation before this House. I'm not going to deal with that, Mr. Chairman, but is it any wonder that they're up in arms when they see this conduct with the Broiler Marketing Board dealing with the government on a private, ad hoc basis outside the law? What other organizations, what other groups in the Province of British Columbia can feel secure? We all appreciate the concern of people in every walk of life with regard to the performance of government.

It's obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the NDP are obviously so embarrassed by the debate that is taking place in this House, in this committee, that they don't want to stay here and listen to it. So, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

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

[ Page 687 ]

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order states: "...not less than two minutes, not more than five. We have a timer here and it certainly hasn't gone past that.

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

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just look at the clock!

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The timer is a 3-minute timer. There is no point of order. It would appear that all who can be here are here. Is it agreed that the vote be taken now?

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 28

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now that the Members of the government party have seen fit to return to the House, I suppose I should review for them the position that I had reached when I.... Well, you see, Mr. Chairman, you have already heard what I had to say, but it's these Members who really need to be instructed.

However, I will only very briefly summarize what I said a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman. It comes down to this: under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, a certain authority is given to Members of the cabinet and certain authority is given to other boards or commissions which are established by those laws. It is improper for people who have no right or responsibility to interfere with the operations of either of those boards or commissions, or with the discharge of cabinet Ministers by their responsibility.

That's where we stand today. It is shocking to find that a Minister of the Crown is the one who has interfered with the operation of a board or commission established by order-in-council, completely without authority, when that cabinet has the power as it deems fit to change the authority of the board and its constitution, and to give the Minister some proper say.

It comes also to this: questions have been raised as to whether Hon. Members of this House and Ministers of the Crown have lied or not. We're not going to get that answer here, obviously, even though the Minister of Agriculture is in a position to cast light upon that most serious question.

It is not a question of whether the Minister has used his lawful authority properly in the administration of affairs falling within his department. The question is, Mr. Chairman, whether in the privacy of their offices and the security of the positions that they hold as Members of the cabinet of this province, individuals, Members of this House, are entitled to meet with citizens of the province and to place propositions before them with all the weight that their particular office carries and allow those citizens to go out from this building expecting that they can rely upon the sense of responsibility of Crown Ministers.

The Premier of this province and the Ministers of this cabinet must recognize that in their positions they cannot make statements publicly or in the privacy of their office. They cannot put suggestions or make demands which are outside the law, because when they do they cast ordinary citizens into the position of having to choose between whether to act within the law or to accept the pressure of government to act outside the law.

For a year or more the citizens of our neighbouring country have had to face up to the unbridled, unfettered and unlawful use of power by people who are in positions in the Executive Branch of the United States of America. And what we have here today is a clear indication that what has taken place in the United States of America in its federal government is, and has been, taking place in British Columbia too — the abuse of executive power and of positions of trust into which Members are placed by this assembly and by the people of this province.

[ Page 688 ]

That's the issue that is raised by the simple conflict of sworn testimony by citizens of this province, statements by the Premier and the absence of any response from the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would seem to me that the charge that the Hon. Member has made should be contained in a substantive motion and brought before the House in that manner if he intends to pursue it, rather than pursued in his estimates.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly am giving the most serious consideration to that particular act, as I assure you or other Members of this assembly. It should be a relief to the people of the Province of British Columbia to know that Members are prepared to stand on the floor of this House and take these positions and bring out into the light of day actions by cabinet Ministers which are wrong, which are improper, and which raise serious doubts as to the efficiency of government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is a disappointment, Mr. Chairman, to find that the Minister did not want to respond to the statements made earlier by my colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). It is a disappointment because we are faced here this morning, as we have been faced every afternoon of the last few days, with a problem which is one of principle, and a fairly fundamental principle at that.

We have, of course, on the one hand the question of improper use of government power. We have the whole question, Mr. Chairman, as outlined in a number of speeches in this chamber as to whether or not it's correct, lawful, for the Minister or the Premier, or civil servants acting at their behest, to interfere in the activities of what are meant to be independent marketing boards set up under our natural products marketing legislation.

We have argued at length, and I think we have proved fairly conclusively, that the activity of the Minister of Agriculture, of the Premier, and of these civil servants acting on their behalf, in relation to these boards has been improper and, indeed, unlawful.

We feel, as has been mentioned before, that this principle is identical to that which has been raised, heard, discussed, over the last year, more than a year, in the United States — whether or not the Executive Branch of government can act unlawfully, and whether or not because they have power — power to conceal, power to cover up, power to coerce — they can ignore the laws that govern other men, and ignore the laws made by this assembly — not by the executive, but by this assembly, the legislative branch of government — allegedly to cover everybody in society.

We discovered that this government and this executive has decided that according to the affidavits filed, sworn affidavits filed, they intend to act unlawfully, illegally — that they intend to act as though the law did not apply to them.

The other aspect, Mr. Chairman, is an equally serious one. We have affidavits, four in number, dealing with two separate items, and these affidavits indicate, if they are true, that either the Minister of Agriculture or the Premier, or both, are not telling the truth in response to questions in this House.

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

This is not a case of a mere difference of interpretation of past events. It's not a case of minor variations as to what happened. The affidavits that we have, if they're true — I'm not sure; I cannot guarantee that, but there is sworn testimony of citizens of this province, and responsible citizens as well — if they are true, they are so contradictory to the statements made in this House that clearly the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture have misled us, and indeed would have lied to this House.

On the other hand, if the statements by the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier are accurate, we have in this province at least four men who are willing to perjure themselves, willing to lie before a notary public, willing to lie about the actions of the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture and, in so doing, casting doubt upon this whole House, its operations, the integrity of the government and, of course, the integrity of the Members here who, after all, should be the first line of defence when it comes to checking on the accuracy of government statements.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the statements of the Premier, in reply to questions in this House, were not corroborated by the Minister of Agriculture in the manner that I would have thought, had he been sure of their accuracy. Mr. Stupich, the Minister of Agriculture, on Wednesday last, talked about: "it's a non-issue, it's a dead issue." He talked about, "I'm not denying that this is their best recollection of what happened."

He said "I'm not denying that this is their best recollection of what happened. I'm not denying that they are likely to recall something that happened a year-and-a-half ago word-for-word better than I would." He's not denying that the likelihood of their being accurate is better than his own. Indeed, he states it flatly. But he goes on to say, despite the fact that in this House the Minister of Agriculture said that in his opinion it's likely that the affidavits filed are more accurate than his recollection of the facts: "I just don't remember it. I'm not terribly concerned about trying to remember it." Then he goes on and

[ Page 689 ]

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

Now, this is very curious. We have a Minister who states that the people who swore these affidavits are probably more correct in their memory of the facts than he is. He goes on to say that he didn't say that the facts were different from what they said. He goes on, however, to say that he's not interested in inquiring into anything. He's not interested in trying to remember. And therefore we've had in the last two days the opposition attempting to push as hard as we can to jog his memory.

Mr. Chairman, the point at issue is this: the Minister has, within his own powers, by consultation with the officials of his department, the ability to set the record straight, and he has consistently refused in this debate to do so. Now, why has he refused? Why will he not take the logical, normal step as the Minister responsible for his department to inquire of his officials, and to discover where the truth actually lies? This is not a question of a couple of people having very minor variations of memory; it is a question of totally different interpretations of the facts.

The Minister, in my view, has every opportunity and has had every opportunity to state what the facts are. He can do this by the simple expedient of consulting with the officials of his department. The officials of his department — more than one of them — have been in this chamber just two or three feet from him. It would have been perfectly simple to consult and find out what the truth was, but apparently, according to the Minister, he was not interested in finding out whether the Premier had told the truth in this House, and he was not interested in finding out whether those who swore formal affidavits were telling the truth when they swore such affidavits.

Now, why is it that he didn't take the logical and normal step of clearing this thing up? We've asked. Every Member in the opposition who has spoken in this debate, I believe, has referred to this in one way or another. We've asked time after time for honesty in government.

This is the government that promised us open government — not closed-doors government, not statements such as "if you say anything outside this room, I'll deny it." This is the government that promised honest government, open government.

It's the government which, when one Member of the cabinet apparently was not candid with the Premier about a matter which has nothing to do with public affairs, nothing to do with the conduct of public business in the province, nothing to do with his oath of office, nothing to do with the expenditure of public funds, when he apparently, according to the Premier, misled him — indeed I think the words used were "was not candid with the Premier" — when that happened to him, by golly, he got the boot very fast. He got thrown out, and there were a lot of sanctimonious things said by the cabinet members at that time.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where are they now?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Where are they now? One of them is in the room. One of them is here, and she said — and let me see if I can find her quote exactly. Oh, dear, maybe I can't. I'll have to make sure I get it exact. Well, I don't have it under my finger, but in any event, the statement made by the Minister was this: "If something incorrect has been done, it is quite right to fire the man. He should be fired at once."

The Premier made statements that his government was an honest, upright government, clean as a hound's tooth. There was going to be none of this nonsense about having any little doubts about truth or veracity of any Minister's statement, and yet now we have the Premier not even attempting....

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

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, you are perfectly right. We are discussing his estimates, and I'm trying to find out why there is this sudden change of heart of the government where he can stay here and simply not give out the facts when he has every opportunity of obtaining the facts, but when another former Minister apparently, if that's the word....

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking why this Minister of Agriculture does not set the record straight when he has within his power the officials, and the ability to consult with officials, which straighten it out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I must give a ruling, and that is that this matter of requesting further information from the Minister now has been repeated many, many times. The Minister has indicated that he has given all the information that he is going to give on this matter. Therefore I would rule that any further questioning seeking further information that has already been canvassed

[ Page 690 ]

repeatedly is out of order under standing order 43.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, that's closure! That's absurd. We have the right to question the Minister on a subject as important to this Legislature, comparatively, as Watergate is to the United States. It's the truth and honesty of Ministers of the Crown, and they are not giving us the truth.

Either the Premier is lying or the people who swore those affidavits are lying. We want to know who is lying. He can set the record straight. He can do it. Here's his opportunity, and I want to know why he isn't doing it! When it came to the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) there was a totally different situation there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The actions of the Premier are not canvassed under the vote of the Minister of Agriculture, nor can any Member insist on an answer in estimates. He may ask questions, but all Members know they cannot insist on answers.

The constant repetition of details of various affidavits is clearly tedious and repetitious, inasmuch as it has been canvassed for two or three days. Therefore I would rule that it offends standing order 43 at this point.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I only recommend to you, for your own best interests, as you said earlier you were protecting the integrity of the Chair, that you reconsider that position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have made a ruling because I felt that it must be made, and if you feel that the ruling is incorrect then you may challenge the ruling of the Chair.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, when coming to your conclusion which, I gather, is not yet reached about your ruling you indicated to the House that the Hon. Minister — and I'm sorry, I can't quote your exact words of just a few seconds ago — had given his answers. That is not correct. The Hon. Minister said last night: "I have said all I'm going to say about that." That is a refusal to answer. He's not answered; he's refused to answer, Mr. Chairman, and that's significantly different.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the Hon. Members know that you may ask the Minister, but you may not insist upon him giving any specific answers. You may pursue the matter with him to some extent, but I've ruled that any further questioning along the same line would be tedious and repetitious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Closure!

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

MR. GARDOM: Oh, oh! Closure!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Members are familiar with the laws of this House. The remedy is that if they don't agree with the ruling of the Chair, they may appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Are there other matters you may wish to comment on?

Interjection.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Neither the Hon. Minister nor the Member makes the rules. I will listen to your remarks and if they are in violation of my ruling then I will so inform you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll remind you once again, as I reminded you one time last year, of Luke, chapter 15. Christ himself found it necessary on occasions to repeat questions in different ways to people who had not understood the import of the question and could therefore understand by parable — the lost coin, the lost son, the lost sheep.

I'll remind you, as a Minister of the cloth, or former Minister of the cloth, of the fact that repetition in a different form is often necessary if people do not understand the importance of the issue raised when it is raised in one way; then it is possible to raise it in another. I quote no other authority than Luke 15.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have made a ruling. If the Hon. Member can pursue this matter in an original and fresh way, then the Chair would be prepared to entertain that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, the original and fresh way of imposing closure upon debate in this House, which you are attempting to do....

[ Page 691 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is an improper remark to address to the Chair. I am seeking to conduct my duties in accordance with the standing orders of the House, and if the Hon. Member does not agree there is a legal remedy, and the legal remedy is to appeal this ruling.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you understand the importance of what you are doing. We have here a question of the integrity of Ministers of the Crown. We have here the very question — let's be blunt — as to whether or not the Premier of British Columbia lied in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We are not considering the Premier's estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are not. We are considering the estimates of the man who could straighten out this matter and clear the name of the Premier, which he has failed to do, or failed to attempt to do, or, indeed, prove that the affidavits are correct or incorrect.

He hasn't done one or the other, and we want to know why. Now, it's his estimates; it's him that I'm questioning because I want to know why he hasn't done this thing to clear the Premier's name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The question is perfectly clear. I'm sure that if the Minister wishes to add anything further he may. But I'm simply saying that to pursue the issue and to insist on the answers is not proper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question is perfectly clear as to whether we in this Legislature can discuss the impropriety of the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture making statements which are denied by responsible citizens on sworn affidavits.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the question is perfectly clear, then perhaps the Hon. Member would give the Minister a chance to speak.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd be delighted to. Go ahead. You carry on — he asked you to speak.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, with due respect, Sir, I thought the Liberal leader was pursuing this matter in a very original way. After all, it isn't easy to think of different ways of asking a question that's so sharp and narrow in its confines. It's testing the imagination of the Members to, as you say, provide original approaches to something as fundamental as lying. I thought the Liberal leader was doing very well at that, Mr. Chairman. I didn't find it tedious at all. And certainly it wasn't irrelevant, referring to standing order 43 that you've been studying this morning.

Mr. Chairman, I have one question of the Minister. Has he consulted with his Deputy, since his Deputy returned from Saskatchewan, as to the veracity of the items contained in the affidavit? That question hasn't been asked before; it's the first time of asking. If you'll answer it, it will be the last. Has he consulted with his Deputy as to the veracity of the statements...?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, I just get interrupted...I need to start again. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, has the Minister consulted with his Deputy since he returned regarding the veracity of the statements in the four affidavits which have been laid before the public of British Columbia? If so, what were the recollections of his Deputy?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) raised some questions about the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board. And she had some information that they had been told by someone that they would be the first ones to participate in the income assurance programme, even before such a programme was ever announced.

I have no knowledge that they were ever told they would be first. I didn't say I had sent them a letter. I said that in talking about the progress with different commodity groups, with respect to the vegetable growers, we have exchanged correspondence. As recently as yesterday I was preparing another letter to go to the president of the Interior board.

As far as a member of my staff telling them they would have to unite the two organizations before any plan would be considered, that was a misunderstanding. I have consulted with my staff about that, and the letter I was working on yesterday will, I think, be a successful attempt to convince them that that was not the impression we tried to convey.

From the time I first arrived in office I had reports from both groups that they had been trying to work together to unite the two organizations. They asked for my response and I said I would welcome such a move. I have asked from time to time for reports of how they're progressing. Sometimes they're optimistic; sometimes they're pessimistic. But I have never said and the staff at no time tried to make them believe that that was a prerequisite to entering into any income assurance programme. To the best of my knowledge they were never told they would be first — certainly not by me.

Interjection.

[ Page 692 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Of course, the amalgamation would have to come from them; I can't impose it. I would assist in any way because I think it would be good for them, but there is no suggestion there would be any imposition of it and no suggestion that it would be a prerequisite for any further consideration of any government assistance.

I see the Members of the Liberal Party are now all back in their seats. I was rather hoping that would be the case because all five of them have spoken immediately after the Member for North Okanagan. It's rather a shame that the once proud, very effective and very strong Liberal Party has such a paucity of material with which to attack the government that they have to fall back on the sort of campaign they have indulged in for the last four days. It's a disappointment to me; I would have expected a lot more from them. I suppose that after they fell down so badly in the throne speech debate and were so ineffective in the budget debate, they felt they had to do something. So now they're trying to get their names in the paper by continuing on this topic ad infinitum.

Of course, that's their privilege; they can do this. They can keep asking questions; they can keep asking the same questions. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) can keep rereading into the record his same speech several times a day. There's no way, really, of stopping him; he can keep on doing that until it's time to catch the plane. It's rather surprising at this time of day on Friday that we have a full House of Liberals.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Where is the Premier?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Premier is attending government business in Vancouver. He had to leave early to catch a plane.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not his estimates that are up today; he didn't have any reason to expect that my estimates would be up today. There is no reason for him to be here because his estimates will not be called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister confine his remarks to the vote?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) repeated himself; he said muscle was applied to both the egg board and the broiler board. I have answered this many times. I have simply said on many occasions — and I'll repeat it again, just in case he didn't hear in the first, second, third and fifty-fourth time — that on neither occasion where there was a meeting in the Premier's office and where there were discussions as to what should happen in the way of settlements was settlement reached in that office.

In the case of the Egg Marketing Board situation, the affidavit said the meeting was on October 26. The egg board signed the agreement five days later on November 1. I don't have in my notes the day as to when the producers themselves signed it. The details of the agreements were not worked out in the Premier's office.

In the case of the broiler situation, again, the date has been well read into the record as to when the meeting was in the Premier's office on the broiler situation. The date has also been well read into the record as to when...I had reason to believe, having two of the three members of the broiler board in my office, telling me they agreed at the conclusion we had reached in my office, that the broiler board would agree when two out of three agreed.

I am not saying anything other than the fact than I felt we had reached agreement that day. But that agreement was in the terms that were discussed in the Premier's office; the terms were quite different from the ones discussed in the Premier's office.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) handled it very neatly by reading into the record a number of questions, and I think I wrote down all of them. In some cases he read out a very specific question and that's easy; in other cases there was a rather long speech before or after the question. I might not have them all down.

The first one: was the agreement drawn on instructions of the Premier? I have already said the details were quite different from those discussed in the Premier's office. I have already said the Premier urged the parties to reach an agreement. That's the answer to that question because the Premier did not lay down the terms of the agreement. He did persuade the parties to agree; that's all.

Were the terms those insisted upon by the Premier? No, in both cases.

Did the Premier say there would be no court action? He did express a wish that it would not go to court. The board itself wished it would not go to court, and certainly the producers wished that. All parties hoped it would not go to court. There was no agreement reached in the Premier's office that it would not go to court. Both parties went out of there still threatening court action. The Premier's word did not carry in that case.

Was this an order? As the Member has said, he had no authority to make any such order and did indeed make no such order in his office or any other time to the best of my knowledge.

Did the Premier physically threaten anyone? The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has many, many times entered into the record the words he prefers to use — not the words in

[ Page 693 ]

the affidavit but his version of them. The Premier never in my hearing physically threatened anyone in his office at that time or any other time.

Did I set the figure at $7,500 for Mr. Kovachich? As I said earlier — it's in the record and I'll say it again — the figure was calculated by my staff as one that was reasonable and on which both parties could agree. It was a figure I suggested to both parties at different times and at different meetings and at different dates when I met with the board, the producers and with both groups. And that figure was the one that was finally signed by both parties and that answers that question.

It was not the Premier who set it; I was the one, with the assistance of my staff, that set that figure.

Did the Premier say he would deny everything if it was said outside of his office? The Premier never at any time in my hearing said anything like that. I can't be responsible for anything he may have said in any other conversation, but never in my hearing did the Premier make any statement like that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Ask your staff.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You're talking about a meeting now when staff weren't present. That particular affidavit refers to quite a different meeting. There were no staff there at that meeting.

Will I request members of my staff, and you named them, to give statements to the House? The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) also dealt with this to some extent by saying that the actions of the government have turned the egg-marketing scheme and possibly the broiler-marketing scheme upside-down.

With particular reference to the egg-marketing scheme, I'd like the Members opposite to consider just who is turning the scheme upside-down. I'd like you to recall that this agreement was reached a year and a half ago and was settled. That was it, until the Members opposite for partisan, political, short-term gain decided to make a real issue of it and turn the schemes upside-down and threaten the existence of these schemes the way they're carrying on. They have every right to do that; I'm not denying your right to make political attacks.

But I am denying your good judgment in trying to involve officials of my department in your political attacks. When you start to bring those people in and start asking questions of those people, you are then challenging their very existence as officials who are going to be able to carry on any kind of relations with the agricultural industry in this province.

I have not discussed these matters with my deputy since he has returned from Saskatchewan; there has been very little time to discuss anything. I told you earlier I have had reports of all the meetings they attended when I was not there. I'm satisfied with the reports I've had. My deputy has not asked me whether he should or should not say anything to the press. If he were to ask me, I would advise him that it would probably be in his own interest and the interests of the industry as a whole if he declined to comment on what is obviously a political attempt to bring disfavour on the Minister of Agriculture. But that's his choice. That's my advice.

I think it's very unfortunate that, as I said, the once-proud, the once-effective, the once-glorious Liberal party has decided that for their own salvation I have to sustain the kind of an attack that is doing extreme disservice to the agricultural industry in this province and will do a lot more disservice if it's continued. But, of course, they may feel for their own political survival, having gone down this road, there's just no way for them to back out of it.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) made a point about adding two members to the board. I think he may have corrected his remarks later on. It was not a case of adding two members to the board; it was a case of adding two members to the association directorate. This was an offer the two members of the broiler board in my office said they would act on immediately. It hadn't even occurred to me. For that matter, I wasn't aware of how many members were on the association directorate or anything else. But they said to involve the Interior people right away, since we're going to have 11 producers up there, we will invite them to name two directors to the association, of which there were 12; they were going to add two more and make it 14.

The number of people on the board itself was a different discussion and one that I have dealt with previously. The order-in-council didn't give the board the right to delegate the licensing authority. I wasn't aware of that at the time, but there certainly is a very easy solution to that. As I said, the board members themselves apparently weren't aware when they were in my office that they didn't have the right to delegate authority. But nevertheless, now that you have pointed this out, since the broiler board agreed to that procedure — or at least I thought they had agreed; we'll have to find out — assuming I was correct in believing they had agreed, then the order-in-council could be changed to accommodate this question of delegating the right to name the 11 producers in the Interior.

One question the hon. leader of the Liberal Party raised, one question only: did the executive branch act unlawfully? At no time in any of the material I've seen has it been suggested that the executive branch, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, has taken any action in any of this at all. The Minister, yes. There has been criticism of the Premier. Part of it? Yes! But I am not the executive branch, and none of these matters have been referred to the executive branch.

[ Page 694 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted that the Minister's memory is improving so much. Wednesday, he thought this was an insignificant debate; he couldn't remember very much. It was one of a few hours that just happened sometime previously and it wasn't very much in his mind. Of course the Premier remembered it; of course Unger remembered it; of course Brunsdon remembered it; of course the others remembered it too. But the Minister of course didn't remember it. "I just don't remember it. I'm not terribly concerned about trying to remember it."

Now, under questioning, repetitive questioning perhaps, his memory has improved. Thus you see the virtue, Mr. Chairman, of following the Bible, Luke 15, of repeating questions in a variety of ways. I'm delighted we are able in this instance to get more information out from the Minister as we did today.

His last remarks were interesting. The executive branch, he said, hadn't of course done anything improper. He admitted that as a member of the executive branch, yes, he had. Now, that's interesting too. With respect to the three members of that board, you'd better check the quotes of the last line or two of your statement, Mr. Minister.

But the issue is still perfectly clear. We have a Minister of the Crown failing to support the statements of the Premier, even though he has the power to do so by a proper inquiry of the departmental officials. We have him, by his refusal, his stonewalling over day after day, casting doubt upon the replies of the Premier to questions in this chamber. I would suggest that what he has done is give credence to affidavits which otherwise they might not even have had.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important matter. It's a matter which in other jurisdictions is of supreme importance: whether or not the executive branch has the right not to obey the law. I use the executive branch in the broad sense meaning Ministers of the Crown, individually or severally or collectively. Whether or not, in this Legislature, the members of the executive will truthfully report to the representatives of the people who are here assembled and assembled in the back benches, the representatives of the people, as to what happened.

Time after time in parliamentary history we've had cases where those charged with carrying on the responsibilities of government have failed to properly account to the peoples' representatives, which we are, and in so doing have brought the whole procedure of democracy down. In many instances it causes complete ruin.

Mr. Chairman, the failure of the Minister day after day to provide this House with adequate information either to support the Premier and clear his name or to support the affidavits leads me to move a motion at this time, seconded by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), that the salary of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, as provided for in vote 3, be reduced by $1 — the standard motion of non-confidence in a Minister who has failed to properly defend his department's estimates, failed properly to defend the Premier, failed to defend his departmental officials.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I seconded the motion because I believe there is a serious question that has not been answered. It was with reluctance because this Minister had gained the confidence of this House in the previous months and was doing a good job, as we've said before, until the interference from other parts of this government got in the way.

I'm disappointed that the Minister has said it's the opposition causing the problems. We didn't raise any of these issues, Mr. Chairman; the issues were raised by two very concerned people in the egg-marketing industry.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, very concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Langley has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please! Would the Hon. Members please not interrupt the speaker?

MR. McCLELLAND: Those people lived for over a year with an imposed settlement which finally, in all conscience, they could not live with any longer. They had to bring those facts out into the public eye; they put their necks on the block by signing a sworn affidavit, telling the actual events which went on between them, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, and the Minister of Agriculture. It was the people who were party to those agreements who finally came forward and raised the issues initially — not the opposition — the people involved.

It's interesting that this morning the Minister has finally said something. He has finally indicated that the affidavits filed in this House contain lies. The Minister has accused those people who have signed those sworn affidavits of lying. Mr. Chairman, four British Columbians have stood on their honour in order to bring forward their fears about political interference and political muscle being applied to force a certain kind of condition. The Minister has been treating what is a very serious presentation, sworn and signed, in a frivolous and off-hand manner.

[ Page 695 ]

The Minister has placed a cloud of suspicion over the integrity of these men, using his position in this House to impugn their integrity by innuendo, by refusing to give clear and responsible answers to very serious allegations. And now he accuses them of lying, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go on record as supporting the integrity of those men. I want to ask the Minister again to open this issue up to the truth. Mr. Chairman, if the Minister is accusing those people of lying, they must have their day in court in the public; they must be given that opportunity.

Now, I want to ask a couple of questions, and I'll admit, Mr. Chairman, that a couple of them were asked last night. But I didn't get any answers at that time and I only want to rephrase them once. I'll only ask them once again. I think that's fair enough because in the heat of debate I'm sure that the Minister forgot about them because he answered everybody else's questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we want to hear them again.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right! I asked last night, Mr. Chairman, whether or not at any time the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) urged the Minister of Agriculture to place the Broiler Marketing Board under government trusteeship. Now, the Minister hasn't even referred even to that question yet. Did the Member ever urge that the Minister place that marketing board under government trusteeship, and if so when? Was it before or was it after that the Minister talked about initial quotas in relation to the board?

I wanted to ask the Minister whether he considered his actions subsequent to those discussions to be, in fact, the placing of the Broiler Marketing Board under some form of government trusteeship, at least under government review? I think that's an important question and one which hasn't been asked before, so it hasn't been answered before.

I want to know whether the Minister has yet received a resolution from the British Columbia Egg Producers' Association supporting in full the entire producers' association, supporting in full the stand taken by sworn affidavit by the two members of the board in question — or former members of the board — Mr. Unger and Mr. Brunsdon?

Mr. Chairman, I wonder in view of all the published reports and in view of further testimony in this House that egg producers, for one commodity group, are very unhappy about the political interference by the Premier, is the Minister prepared to review his position and order a public inquiry? — particularly in the light of his statements this morning that these people lied in their affidavits.

Is the Minister going to publicly, outside of this House, refute those affidavits in question, or will they take legal action against the people involved?

I believe that in the light of the answers this morning, the Minister has an obligation to begin an immediate inquiry. There's no question in my mind, no question whatsoever, that the Premier in relation to this question of the marketing board took more than a passing interest, much more than a passing interest.

No doubt that those producers were threatened. No doubt that there was political interference in the operations of two of British Columbia's marketing boards. No doubt that the Premier did interfere; that the Premier did lay down certain orders and that the Premier did suggest that those producers would be in for a rough ride if they didn't toe the line. No doubt whatsoever, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister himself admits that there was political interference. And he has said, "What's wrong with that?" Well, that's part of the problem, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister doesn't even understand anything as fundamental as that question. He should know what's wrong with that. He should know what's wrong with that kind of political interference. He should know what's wrong with that kind of political muscle.

The Minister not only admitted that there was political interference; the Minister has also admitted that he threatened the Broiler Marketing Board. The Minister admitted in this House that he threatened the Broiler Marketing Board. And he doesn't understand what's wrong with that. And his threats are working because the egg producers are now operating in fear; in fear that he or the Premier will take further action and, in fact, may even order cut-backs in the production in regard to those egg producers.

Mr. Chairman, a quote from an article in The Vancouver Sun: "The fear is evident in the response of producers." And let's listen to this little remark:

"The fear is evident in the response of producers to confidential, but leaked reports," — confidential, but leaked reports — "by a Department of Agriculture employee conducting a one-man inquiry into the dispute between a few northern egg producers at the B.C. Egg Marketing Board."

Mr. Chairman, once again it seems to me that we had better call some officials before a public inquiry — not only to clear up this question of affidavit statements, and that's vitally important that these questions be cleared up, but to clear up yet another indication of leakage in this government. Another indication of leakage of confidential reports by an official.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why doesn't your own leader take a stand? What's going on there?

[ Page 696 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Don't give that speech in Kelowna.

MR. McCLELLAND: Once again Mr. Chairman, we've got an example of government confidential documents being leaked to the press....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Where's your leader?

MR. McCLELLAND: ...being leaked all over the province of British Columbia. That alone should be enough evidence for that Minister to call an immediate inquiry. That alone!

Talk about Watergate! My God, the province of British Columbia is getting to look more like Watergate every day.

The Minister yesterday, I believe it was yesterday in this House, in response to a question from the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), denied that there was any pressure to have any further reductions of quotas among existing producers; that there was a 90 per cent quota in effect at the moment, and that there weren't any further moves or any further suggestions of further reductions in quota. Yet, that leaked confidential report says, "Perhaps the lower mainland producers should be cut by 10 per cent of their quota from the 90 per cent of the allowable quota which they are now producing at." That's what that leaked confidential report suggests, Mr. Chairman.

You know, it's sad to me, Mr. Chairman, that this government doesn't even understand how serious the problem is; how serious the charges that have been made are. The charges are of lying. Even your own Member, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Shuswap has accused publicly — in an article in a public newspaper — has accused agricultural officials and the Agriculture Minister of lying. That from your Member from Shuswap. And still they don't understand the seriousness of the charges.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) pointed out very clearly that the Minister has acted beyond his authority. The Minister has admitted that he has interfered beyond his authority. The Minister has admitted that he has interfered; he stood in his place today and admitted it — that he has interfered beyond his authority. No doubt about that. No doubt about that Mr. Chairman.

MR. LIDEN: You've got egg on your face.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this government has egg on its face. This government is in serious trouble and knows it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got it. Scrambled eggs on your face.

MR. McCLELLAND: The government is in serious trouble and knows it and that's why the Premier's gone into hiding again.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: The phantom MLA, just heard from again.

Mr. Chairman, in relation to the problem of the Minister acting beyond his authority: again I'd just like to say that if there isn't any political consideration going on in the selection of the board or the committee to choose which 11 producers will be allowed to begin their quotas in the Okanagan-Kamloops area, then why not allow the broiler board to do its job? Why not allow the broiler board to implement the policies that are laid down by the laws of British Columbia? Why do you have to interfere again outside of your authority?

Mr. Chairman, the Minister said that the opposition raised all these questions with regard to the collapse or the possible collapse of the marketing board set-up system in British Columbia.

I draw to your attention again, Mr. Chairman, a resolution not from the opposition, not from the Liberal Party, not from the Social Credit Party but from the British Columbia Egg Producers Association in which, because of political interference by the Premier of British Columbia and political interference by the Minister of Agriculture, the egg producers of British Columbia have taken very drastic action — the kind of action that's never been necessary in this province before. I draw to your attention again, Mr. Chairman, that had this whole affair remained clean, if the Premier had kept his nose out of it, if the Minister had not succumbed to that kind of blatant political pressure, then the problem of expanding the egg marketing industry to the rest of the province would have been well on its way, and was well on its way until....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On Clearbrook's terms.

MR. McCLELLAND: On the terms negotiated, Mr. Chairman, by your Minister of Agriculture. And that Minister of water (Hon. R.A. Williams) has stood up and attempted to cut the legs out from under that Minister of Agriculture by his attack on the marketing boards when the Minister stood up the day before and defended and praised the marketing boards. You've attempted to cut the legs out of your own Minister and it's that kind of political interference, once again, that we're fed up with in British Columbia.

[ Page 697 ]

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Leave the Minister alone to do his job. He was doing a good job until you started to apply the muscle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that the motion does concern the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, I see.

MRS. JORDAN: We're not sure who the Minister of Agriculture is.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right; it's difficult to tell who's running the Agriculture department. But I must say that there was a programme underway, there were negotiations underway, but the conduct once again of the Premier of British Columbia undermined that whole programme, and it is now in danger of collapse. That's a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) about undermining.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm going to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that regardless of what kind of a snowjob we're faced with here, the question isn't one of expansion of industry at all; it isn't one of quotas at all; it isn't one of marketing boards at all, because the Minister has ably defended the marketing boards. He's ably defended the marketing boards and the kind of job that they should be allowed to do, if you people would keep your sticky fingers out of it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): All the glue is in Clearbrook, and you know it.

MR. McCLELLAND: The question, I repeat again, is of power politics, of integrity by Ministers of this Crown, of morality in government and of truth. Somebody is not telling the truth, Mr. Chairman, and it's about time. Somebody's lying and it's about time that we found out the truth and opened this whole thing up to public inquiry. That's why I second that motion, Mr. Chairman.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I haven't spoken on this matter over the past few days. I've listened, though, with interest and with increasing concern to the case which has been, I think, very well put by a number of Members of the opposition.

The Minister, since he was sworn in as Minister of Agriculture, has told a number of people and has made it pretty clear that he is a Minister in a hurry. I think that's a fair observation on the comments that he has made in various parts of the province. He's a Minister in a hurry to catch up with some of the shortcomings of previous administrations in agriculture, and a Minister in a hurry to assist people engaged in agriculture, but I don't think we realized that in that rush or hurry the Minister would employ shortcuts which were not necessary in the first place and which were not entirely correct in the second place.

There seems to me to be no doubt about the fact that the Minister did exceed his authority in this particular instance. To be charitable, one could say that he did it because of his desire to make corrections and to bring about an improvement in the industries concerned, but that really doesn't excuse him.

I also have to say that I'm very disappointed, on his return from Saskatchewan, that the Premier's attendance in this House today has been for just a few moments — Mr. Chairman, before you bang the gavel — when he obviously has such a vital role to play in clearing up the doubts and uncertainty which exist about this matter which has occupied the attention of the House for quite some time. I'm extremely disappointed that, in spite of his expansion on the matter a few minutes ago, the Minister has still not given straightforward and direct answers to the questions which have been put in an intelligent, responsible and concerned fashion by several Members of the opposition side of this House.

MR. McGEER: I'm rather surprised that the Attorney-General, who was making a continuous speech from his seat, hasn't been up to lay his charges, if they should be made, regarding favouritism by the members of the Egg Marketing Board out of self-interest.

I think there is only one Member of this House who has a determined self-interest in the matter in question. I refer to quotas here, but that's not the important issue that we're debating with this motion, and that's the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). If one were to really trace the course of events, one would find that it has been the political backbench that laid the muscle on the Premier, that laid the muscle on the Minister of Agriculture, that laid the muscle on the Egg Marketing Board, that led to the four affidavits that were placed before the public of British Columbia.

None of the people who have been raising the issue in this House have any self-interest in this matter. All of them have agreed that there should be a better distribution of egg and broiler production in British Columbia and that there should be thriving industries in the Interior and the north.

But Mr. Chairman, the end never justifies the means.

[ Page 698 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hey, where'd you get that?

MR. McGEER: This NDP government which went so sanctimoniously to the public of British Columbia, saying it would be clean as a hound's tooth....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's Gaglardi's line.

MR. McGEER: ...was busy applying the kind of backroom muscle that no government in British Columbia has ever dared before to apply. Never have we had affidavits in British Columbia coming forward saying that the Premier would kick the "censored" out of a group of people that he brought into his office. Never before.

I'm disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier visited Victoria so briefly this week. It seems as though when it begins to get hot in the kitchen, the Premier goes outside where it's cool. Last Friday we had a march on Victoria by over 1,000 Surrey school teachers and the Premier was busy exercising....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: He was! He wasn't attending to his business here in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! The motion reads that the salary of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, as provided for in vote 3, be reduced by $1. Direct your comments to that motion.

MR. McGEER: That's right. The Premier is the Minister of Finance and I want to hear him, in this debate, say whether or not that's an appropriate action.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the substance of the motion.

MR. McGEER: This is the substance of the motion. Who pays his salary? The Minister of Finance pays his salary. If we pass this motion, and I hope we will, he'll have to change his budget. It's of vital interest to the Minister who has visited Victoria so briefly, and who might, if he were here, tell us....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member either make his remarks relevant to the motion or take his seat?

MR. McGEER: I think it's relevant for every single Member of this House, including the Premier, to speak to this motion. There's nothing irrelevant about it. It's an important question that everybody should vote on, including the Premier of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I ask the Hon. Member to make his remarks relevant to the motion — why he lacks confidence in the Minister of Agriculture — or else take his seat.

MR. McGEER: Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that it's not important for everybody to vote?

MR. LIDEN: That's not the issue.

MR. McGEER: But it is the issue — what every person's recorded vote is. Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to persuade all the Members of this House to support the motion, including the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member take his seat, please?

MR. McGEER: On what grounds? If I'm to take my seat, you need to say why.

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

MR. McGEER: Why, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm ordering you to be seated. Be seated.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, on what standing order are you ordering me to be seated? Name your authority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You either take your seat or I report to the Speaker forthwith.

MR. LIDEN: You know the rules Pat; you know the rules.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, you ask me to take my seat. You have to state what order you are using. What rule is that? I'm just asking the Chairman for his authority.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The rules call for you to sit down the minute the Chairman stands up.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Chairman is always in order in this House.

I think the Member should be allowed to proceed.

I'm sure he'll come back. I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that he has not been speaking to the motion, but I think he will come back to it and I suggest that he be allowed to proceed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only one Member is allowed to be on his feet at a time. I would request that the Hon. Member be seated. He has refused to obey my

[ Page 699 ]

order...

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I only asked you to tell me why you wanted me to be seated.

MR. LIDEN: Sit down and he'll tell you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member insists on playing games, then we will play games. I will report this matter to the Speaker of the House.

MR. LIDEN: Sit down, Pat.

MR. McGEER: No game, Mr. Chairman. I have no desire really to be in any conflict with you. I am quite desirous of keeping to the point, but I thought I was on the point and I needed guidance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to remain seated while I make my comments. Now I think that's clear. You just misunderstood what I was seeking to do.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the matter which I wish to report to you is that I asked the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to take his seat so that I might make a comment with regard to the violation of standing orders. He refused to remain in his seat and I was unable to make any comments.

However, I understand now that he is willing to remain seated while I make my comments. I would request that you leave the chair, now that I've made my point.

MR. SPEAKER: After you get it all over, I've a birthday cake up in the restaurant for you. You're all welcome to come. (Laughter.)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling that I made was that thus far in the debate the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has said nothing relevant to this motion. I would ask that he say something relevant to this motion, or else I would ask him not to take his place in the debate.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if it's the wish of the House, I'll continue.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want you to understand that I first of all needed to appreciate exactly why you requested that I take my seat. Then

I thought you were about to recognize someone else. But in any event, speaking to the motion, Mr. Chairman....

I think that a number of Hon. Members have tried to focus sharply on the precise issue before the Minister of Agriculture at the point of this motion that we reduce his salary by $1. The simple issue is this: whether or not the government is prepared to tell the truth about the methods it has used and to take the responsibility for its actions.

The Minister of Agriculture admits in a memorandum, which was seen by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) and the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), that he was forced by the Premier to take certain actions that now have been well established were outside his responsibility and beyond the law. Now, Mr. Chairman, that isn't one of the four affidavits that were laid. That was a memo of the Minister of Agriculture himself.

Certainly the people who attended the meeting in the Minister's office had been prepared to lay affidavits that the Minister conveyed to them his helplessness in the matter, his impotency. I'm not altogether sure that he was helpless because there was another course of action he could have taken, a much more honourable course. That was to simply send a note to the Premier saying, "Either you stay out of my affairs, or you have my resignation."

That was the course which a Minister of Agriculture should have taken, if he were living up to the highest honour of his office, when improper pressure was applied to him by the Premier and president of the executive council.

We speculated on the reasons why a Premier would so improperly instruct one of his Ministers. We've suggested it, and certainly the Member for Shuswap and the Member for Kamloops would be in the best position of any to deny that.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, we've established one thing, though it's never been admitted, and that is that there is a lot of power down in that corner. Mr. Chairman, I'm hoping that as a result of this debate the people down in that corner will learn to use their power properly — use it on the floor of the House and not in making deals with the Premier, not in the secret caucus committees that then go and place the Premier in a position where he...

MR. LIDEN: We represent the people. We represent the people's interests.

MR. McGEER: ...feels obliged to improperly instruct his Minister of Agriculture. Yes, he did that; that's what the Minister's own memo said. That's

[ Page 700 ]

what the sworn affidavit said.

MR. LIDEN: Get back to your boardrooms.

MR. McGEER: The Minister was improperly directed by the Premier. Now why would a Premier who's not a big man in eggs go to that extent? Why, he'd only go to that extent if there were some other muscle being applied on him.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Right on.

MR. McGEER: It goes from there to there to there to the Egg Marketing Board and then back to the public.

MR. LIDEN: You don't represent any egg farmers.

AN HON. MEMBER: A three-cushion shot.

MR. McGEER: A three-cushion shot, but they missed the pocket.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: They ripped the table, that's what they did. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: They knocked the end off the cue.

MR. McGEER: And they left the Minister behind the eight ball. We're waiting, Mr. Minister, for the arrival time of the Premier of this province. We don't like it; when the heat's on in the kitchen, the Premier slips out.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Very, very busy in the most important debate of his career as Premier.

MRS. JORDAN: Maybe he's over muscling the board again.

MR. McGEER: The buck really stops at the Premier's office, you know. We're voting on the Minister's salary right now. We're going to come to his estimates, and there are a lot of questions that the Premier is going to be asked, make no mistake about it.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): See, you get to ask them all over again.

MR. McGEER: We're just asking. We're just asking. Well, the Premier is going to get his threats from the public of British Columbia, where you'll be held to account for his actions in the final analysis. But, Mr. Chairman, though we regret having to put forward this motion of non-confidence to a Minister that in many ways has done his job well, there comes a time, I suppose, in everyone's life, and it has come in the life of this Minister, when backbone is more important than anything else.

When that ultimate test came, the Minister failed. When he was asked to account for himself in this chamber, he failed again.

So, Mr. Chairman, I intend to support the motion put forward by the Liberal leader.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just a few remarks. This motion is not acceptable to the government...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...even though it's only $1, and we'd be glad to pass the hat for the finest Minister of Agriculture this province has ever had.

You know, the people spoke in an election — and this province does not stop at Chilliwack. Really, is it right or democratic that people in the north who want to raise eggs have got to buy quotas for $40,000 or $60,000 or $100,000 in order to be able to go into that secondary industry and bring a few fresh eggs into the north? Should the farmers of the Okanagan have to go and buy quotas from the Fraser Valley in order to go into raising broiler chicks to feed their own people?

It's the Premier who insisted that we be fair to the whole Province of British Columbia — that's what he was doing. And the Minister of Agriculture was insisting that we be fair to the whole of the people of the Province of British Columbia, not one little segment of it.

I just want to say this about the charges that there was interference with an independent board: If there was interference with an independent board, I suppose those gentlemen on the board would resign, would they not? Would they carry on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sure they would.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no. They'd carry on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, old chap, sit down.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was a year-and-a-half ago. I don't remember them resigning or running to the press, or something like that. I

[ Page 701 ]

presume they carried out their duty and their independent function. And if they didn't, they should have resigned. Because if they went ahead and made a decision under pressure or threats, or something of that kind, they would be derelict in their duty, wouldn't they?

AN HON. MEMBER: They did resign. What's the matter with you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They went ahead and they were those producers who had a bit of interest in the thing. So I think that charge is just ridiculous. It is a smokescreen for the fact. It's a smokescreen!

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There wasn't a peep from a chicken a year-and-a-half ago when these terrible things were supposed to have taken place. They stayed on, and if they acted under pressure they were derelict in their duty.

So the real issue is simply this...and it was said by the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) the other day. He said: "What you people are doing is accusing the Minister of Agriculture of being fair." That's the issue; and we oppose the motion.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We always enjoy it when the Attorney-General stands and defends Ministers of the Crown. It reminds us of the sterling defence given by Attorney-General John Mitchell of Mr. Richard Nixon — and we know what happened to him.

If the Hon. Attorney-General had taken the trouble to look at the material...

MR. LIDEN: The Liberals are in real trouble now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...which was tabled in this House last night, he would have seen that Mr. Brunsdon, who swore the affidavit, saying that he was a member of the Egg Marketing Board until November, 1972, which was just at the very time that the Premier interfered with the Minister of Agriculture who, in turn, interfered with the Egg Marketing Board. That is when he ceased to be a member; he got out of it.

Now, if you would just get your facts straight, Mr. Attorney-General, maybe the Minister of Agriculture would have a chance.

However, the Attorney-General's conduct in this matter is not that which is before this committee, Mr. Chairman, or I'm sure you would call me to order.

The fact of the matter is that what we are concerned with is the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture. I must say, Mr. Chairman, if yesterday we had contemplated such a motion as we have here today, I might have been constrained to vote against the motion.

But we have seen here this morning two clear instances of exactly the way this government and the cabinet works. Now we saw one a moment ago....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're totally wrong. Hudson didn't resign, his term came up.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Minster wants me to read Mr. Brunsdon's affidavit. I'll read the first paragraph: That from the first day of January....

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, you're all screaming to hear it. Now, do you want to hear it, or are you going to gabble over there? Maybe Mr. Woodpecker could go out in the hall and we could get on with the work of the committee.

Paragraph 1 of the affidavit says: "That on the first day of January, 1972, until the month of November, 1972, I was a member of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board." So he ceased then....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: He was up for election then.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, so whether he resigned...he got out. He certainly did not seek re-election. But if any resignations are required, Mr. Chairman, it is the resignation of either the Attorney-General or the Minister of Agriculture. Those are the resignations we should seek. And I'll tell you why. We have seen two clear examples this morning of the way in which these Crown Ministers act. A moment ago the Attorney-General stood up and he gave the orders: "We are not going to support this motion."

Now, you fellows have all got the word. And the way the Minister of Agriculture dealt with his senior officials this morning is exactly what happened to the Egg Marketing Board and the Broiler Marketing Board.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Muscle.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Agriculture stood in this place and said, "I haven't talked to my Deputy Minister and senior officers about what they

[ Page 702 ]

should do if the press approaches them. But if I were to advise them, this is what I would tell them to do: not to speak to the press because it wasn't in the interests of agriculture in British Columbia."

Now it didn't take much of a brain to get the message. I'm sure the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the other senior staff got the message loud and clear. "Don't talk to the press. Shut up." That's what the Minister of Agriculture said. "You know too much." And that's exactly the way in which the Minister and the Premier have dealt with the people who came into their office. "We're telling you what to do, and if you say anything outside the House, we'll deny it." That's the kind of muscle. We saw it here on the floor of the House with respect to the Deputy Minister and the senior staff. And why?

There is one affidavit that hasn't been dealt with very much, and that is the affidavit of Mr. Stafford who is the manager of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board. This is what he said, that: there was a meeting on February 5, 1974, in the office of the Associate Deputy Minister of Agriculture — February 5, 1974; at that meeting there was the Associate Deputy; the Deputy; William Wood, the poultry commissioner; the chairman of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board; and two members of the board. They were all together in Mr. Maurice King's office. The Minister was not present. Mr. Stafford, the manager of that board, was informed by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture that the Premier had ordered the allocation of permits in the Kamloops-Okanagan area. He was also informed by Mr. Peterson that Mr. Barrett had directed that a committee of three people be appointed to determine the allocation of those permits on the basis ordered by Mr. Barrett. Contrary to the law, Mr. Chairman.

At about 9:45 a.m., the Minister came to the meeting and the Minister informed Mr. Stafford that in the matter of the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permit policy, the department was acting on orders from Mr. Barrett. And Mr. Stafford says: "The Minister, Mr. Stupich, informed me that it is out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it will be," or similar words to that effect.

It is no wonder, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister today gave the message loud and clear to his Deputy and to the other senior members of his staff, "Shut up. Don't say anything. We're not going to have a public inquiry, and if you say anything we recognize that you are going to have to tell the truth and support the statements of Mr. Stafford, which will embarrass the Minister, which will embarrass the Premier and which will embarrass the government." And on that basis, Mr. Chairman, if for none other, I have no confidence in that Minister.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the statements of the two Ministers who have spoken recently in this debate — the Minister of Agriculture, on his last intervention, and the Attorney-General a couple of minutes ago — give even stronger reasons to support this motion.

The Attorney-General said, "If there was pressure on the Egg Marketing Board, if there was pressure on the board members, they should have resigned." I ask the Attorney-General: who should resign — the presser or the pressee? I say the presser should resign, and that was the government.

HON. MR. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Hon. Members on the board wouldn't accept that thing and still stay on the board.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister of Agriculture said just before that that the Premier had indeed expressed a wish at that meeting — a wish, that was the word of the Minister — that there be no court action. He expressed a wish that there be no court action to the Egg Marketing Board, a group that could be disbanded by order-in-council. The Premier of this province expressed that wish, and he could direct that order-in-council.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you if that's pressure. That's pressure, Mr. Attorney-General.

The Minister of Agriculture gave us a few more details on how there came to be a reduction on the charges levied against Mr. Kovachich. This was an interesting addition. I'd ask the Minister how many other such reductions of charges there have been in this province in the last couple of years — reductions of charges of penalties levied by marketing boards.

What's the usual practice in this case? Is it the usual practice to cut it by two-thirds? The Minister said that he hadn't had time to discuss with his Deputy, since his Deputy returned from Saskatchewan, whether or not his Deputy did indeed use the words to Mr. McAninch as attested by Mr. McAninch and as attested by Mr. Stafford to the effect that the Premier gave orders to do thus and so.

Mr. Chairman, this question is so important that the House, I'm certain, would respond positively to a suggestion by the Minister, if he so wished, that the House might recess for a few minutes so that the Minister could take the time to consult with his Deputy, who's now back in town. This is important enough to do that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

For these reasons, and no better answers being forthcoming, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this motion.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I've listened to this lengthy debate over the last few days. I've tried to decide in my own mind where the facts and the issue really lie. I've been most attentive to the arguments that have been put forward this morning

[ Page 703 ]

by the opposition.

I'm more than ready to admit that, prior to this long debate, I was not well-informed about marketing boards to the detail that I am now. I've always felt that Members of this House who are not well-informed about a subject shouldn't have too much to say about it.

But I have made inquiries as a result of the serious nature of the issue which is being put forward in this House, and I understand that there has been a tremendous degree of argument and dispute and in-fighting among marketing boards and personalities on the board. I've certainly had my share of individuals coming to me stating the injustice which exists and the wrongs that need to be righted.

I can well sense the responsibility placed on the Minister of Agriculture. When disputes arise in this area of his jurisdiction, the going could be very rough. Regardless of the final conclusion that I've come to, I do think, with respect to all in this House, that it is not really fair to compare this situation to Watergate.

I feel, and I should say, that my conclusion is that the Minister has erred, he interfered, and he was also subjected to unfair pressure by his own Premier; but I think there's a very clear distinction, in my mind at least, as to the motivation behind the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that in life one should always consider at least motivation before one decides that a person has erred. The degree to which they've made a mistake should surely be judged on the motivation behind the mistake.

From listening to the debate and from the inquiries I've done about this whole mess of marketing boards and the confusion which exists and the fact that I suggested — and the Minister agreed — during the debate that there was a place for some supervisory body of authority to which the marketing boards would be responsible so that the Minister himself could indeed remain free from the danger of being dragged into this kind of situation, whether or not he wanted to be in it....

I can well sense the amount of frustration which any Minister of Agriculture would have in trying to deal with a situation which of itself is basically unsound. It seems to me, as an observer and a listener to this debate, that I might ask leave of the House to continue a few minutes beyond 1 o'clock, Mr. Chairman.

Leave not granted.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:00 p.m.