[ Page 917 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates

Mr. Bennett — 917

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 918

Mr. Bennett — 918

Mr. Gardom — 918

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 919

Mr. Curtis — 920

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 920

Mr. Cummings — 922

Mr. Schroeder — 922

Mr. McGeer — 924

Hon. Mr. King — 925

Mr. L.A. Williams — 927

Mr. Chabot — 929

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 929

Mr. Smith — 930

Mr. Gibson — 931

Mr. Chabot — 934

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 934

Mr. Gardom — 935

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 935

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 938

Mr. D.A. Anderson (amendment) — 939

Mr. Bennett — 939

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 940

Mr. McGeer — 940

Hon. Mr. Lea — 941

Mr. McClelland — 941

Mr. L.A. Williams — 942

Mr. Wallace — 942

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 945

Mr. Gardom — 945

Hon. Mr. Lea — 946

Mr. Gibson — 946

Mr. McGeer — 947

Mr. Dent — 948

Hon. Ms. Young — 949

Mr. McGeer — 951

Division on amendment — 952

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 952

Privilege

Use of unparliamentary language.

Mr. Chairman — 954

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 954

Mr. Speaker — 954

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 954

Mr. Speaker — 954

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates

Mr. Phillips — 955

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 955

Mr. L.A. Williams — 956

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 960

Mr. Fraser — 964

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 965

Mr. McGeer — 965

FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like the House to welcome two students this morning, Susan Antic and Ingrid Pincott, who are here from the North Island Senior Secondary School at Port McNeill. They arrived yesterday afternoon with their class at 3 p.m. and asked special permission from their teacher, Mr. Parker, who is here with them, to be excused from the tour that has been arranged for them today in order that they might come back and see more of the work being done in this House. I do hope the assembly will make them feel welcome.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I can't let the opportunity pass by without extending a very warm welcome to Monsignor Michael O'Connell, who led us in prayers just a few moments ago. He's a very good friend and a very fine and sensitive churchman, in the true sense of the word, and a man who I think has assisted more people in the greater Victoria and southern Vancouver Island area in a quiet and dignified way than we will ever realize. It's good to see him here this morning.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I don't know if I can accuse the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) of reading my mind, but that's exactly what I was getting up to say this morning. It's a great pleasure for me to see Monsignor O'Connell with us this morning. Monsignor O'Connell is a devoted Christian; a great number of us legislators have seen him share his life and his ideals and his principles with people of all walks of life. Monsignor O'Connell can be seen talking to the very wealthy and at the same day be on the picket line with the very poor. He's a very active Christian who loves all people, and I am pleased that he is with us today.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

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

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, during this vote and during the agricultural estimates we've seen some highly emotional statements made in this chamber. We've had some very serious allegations repeated that were started by citizens of this province through affidavit, through the agricultural estimates. We found it very difficult to stay on the business of the estimates of this House. And now again in the Premier's estimates we've had difficulty staying on the estimates and being able to ask rational questions and, indeed, receive any answers.

Emotions of this House on all sides have run high. The reputation of this House is much in question not only in the province, but in the rest of the country, as a place to make rational decisions.

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: It's all right for the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) to say, "oh." Perhaps he prefers it that way; I don't. I believe that this House and this Legislature will not get down to serious discussion until the matter at hand is resolved. We will have these emotions and these types of speeches coming from both sides of the House until such a time as this matter is taken out of this arena and into an area where it can be decided.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to vote 2?

MR. BENNETT: Yes. I'm speaking on the events that have taken place on discussion on this vote, Mr. Chairman. Great latitude has been shown before, and I believe this Legislature wants to get down to the business at hand. A great deal of discussion has been spent on the allegations made in these affidavits, and on the Premier's response to them. I believe it has impaired and impeded the discussion of the business of this House and these estimates.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Your father was going to call it the United Party.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Go get Granny a job.

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

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

[ Page 918 ]

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Well, I believe in allowing you, when the Premier rattles your chain, to let you all have your chance. It's this very attitude of not staying within the business of the committee and the Legislature that has really got the public concerned about what we do here. We're talking about more than confidence in the Premier, or in the government — we're talking about confidence in this Legislature to adequately conduct the public's business.

As Leader of the Opposition, I'm concerned. While I haven't played a prominent part in the discussion of the charges, we have tried to stay within the discussion of the estimates at hand. So that we can get down to the discussion of the estimates, and so that this Legislature can get back on track, and so that we can discuss the issues of this province, I would be pleased if the Premier would move a vote for a judicial inquiry. I would be pleased as the Leader of the Opposition to second such a motion so that this Legislature can get back to the business at hand.

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

MR. BENNETT: Well, I believe, rather than the smokescreens thrown up by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) or the smokescreens thrown up by other Members in this House, that the public isn't happy with your antics, particularly that your department has done nothing in the months you've been Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address questions to the Hon. Premier or Minister of Finance?

MR. BENNETT: Right, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for slipping into the attitudes that are prevalent in this House. But I do believe in all sincerity that the Premier can show leadership as House Leader and Premier of the province by calling this judicial inquiry, by removing this discussion from the House, by taking it out of the realm of politics. Then this House can return to the business at hand in running this province.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree that the House is probably not passing through one of its finest periods here in British Columbia, and that we should get on with the business at hand, which are the estimates and the very important things involved in the Department of Finance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would hope that the kind of insult, of which we have just had an example from the Second Member for Victoria, would not continue to degrade and lower this Legislature and the process of parliamentary democracy any further in the eyes of our citizens.

Now, there's a legitimate difference of opinion. We've had frank statements made over about 10 days by the Premier; other people have quoted affidavits, and even if I haven't read them all, I've certainly listened to them all.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And it's been debated in the Legislature and discussed thoroughly. And don't forget that behind this — we're a democracy — are the people; they are the judge and jury of a thing like this.

I think it would be very difficult for any kind of an inquiry whatsoever to come to any conclusion, really, as to who had the best memory as to what was said a year-and-a-half ago. That would be the result of any inquiry: who has the best memory, the best recollection!

I really feel that the dignity of the Legislature is a bit at stake here. This business of one Member calling another one a liar, or hinting that another Member is a liar, has gone on now for some 10 days. It's time to cap it and get on with the important business of the House because there are terribly important policy issues here in the Province of British Columbia, and let's get on with that.

Both sides have made their positions very plain. Let's get on with that public business and try, a little better than we have been doing, to uphold the dignity of parliament.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I echo the Attorney-General's sentiments, but I believe it's beyond this committee now to resolve this situation. The only one who can resolve it and bring some sense of discussion back to this Legislature is the Premier by removing this discussion from the Legislature and taking it to an independent inquiry. He has that power. He can do it. He has an obligation to do it and we'll support him if he'll do it.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Hon. Premier, and with response to a couple of the remarks made by the Attorney-General, there's one other thing at stake here that has really not been canvassed in the House, and that's the rule of law. That's at stake.

Laws are meant to be obeyed. If a law is a bad law, it's supposed to be changed, and we have the competence within this Legislature to do that. But it

[ Page 919 ]

has still not been decided or agreed to by anybody as to whether or not the actions here of the marketing board, resulting from the persuasion exercised by the Premier, are intra vires. Does it have the power to waive a legitimate claim — reduce a legitimate claim of $21,000 down to $7,500? There's not a person in this Legislature who knows the reason for the reduction. Is it a legal reduction or not? You don't know that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They both have lawyers.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, that they both have lawyers has nothing to do with whether or not this thing is a legal reduction or not, and you know that, Mr. Attorney-General. There is nothing before this Legislature to suggest that it is; and I must conclude that it is not.

Now, resulting from that: are there other producers in the Fraser Valley who are refusing to pay their levies today unless they get an assurance from the government — the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture — that there will no longer be Kovachich incidents? I would suggest to you, Mr. Premier, that there are such people who will not pay their levies until they receive that assurance, because they say, "Look, I'm going to abide by the law the way that it is written, providing other people do."

Are you going to have a system depending upon what the petition is to the Premier or to the Minister of Agriculture, or are we going to follow the Natural Products Marketing Act and the regulation issuing there from?

Mr. Attorney-General, that matter has never been discussed in this Legislature; it has never been answered. I put this question: as far as I know, the board did not have the legal competence to do that, and I think that should be tested in the courts. I can't bring an action like that, but I think it should be incumbent upon the board itself to do it. Or any producer could challenge the position taken by the board.

Now, if it is true that other people are withholding payment of similar legal charges because they feel that there was interference; you have a breakdown in the structure of society. Make no mistake of that. If that is happening, you are not legislating.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Chairman, I have not entered into the debate on the Premier's estimates, but I feel I must do so now. The Liberal Members of this House have talked a lot about justice. They have placed themselves as the defenders of right and truth and justice. On the other hand, they are willing to admit that the marketing board system has been a failure. They are willing to say....

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

HON. MR. LAUK: They are willing to say that there are inadequacies of a grave nature causing injustices throughout this province.

On the other hand, they say that the really important issues are that the Premier may or may not have put some pressure on some members of the marketing board. It reminds me very much of the woman who was raped, being blamed by the judge for walking down a dark alley. Whenever there is a substantive issue of justice and together with it a minor one, it seems to me that Members of the Liberal party will choose the minor one every time.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: Where were they when for so many years there were injustices in this province and in this country? Cultural and financial barriers to the good life, you don't hear them argue for these injustices, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, Gary. Right to sue the Crown, auditor-general, Labour Code, Law Reform Commission....

HON. MR. LAUK: And it was not the New Democratic Party that brought the iron heel of totalitarianism against the innocent Quebec population some years ago. Oh no, it's not these major issues of justice, Mr. Chairman, it's the minor ones. It's the nit pickers. Give the Liberals a mile, and they'll take an inch every time. (Laughter.) They are the protectors of privilege and the privileged classes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your direction. I will do so — it's just by way of preamble to the Minister's estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose side are you on?

HON. MR. LAUK: The big business corporations — they'll stand up and defend them every time. They'll stand up and defend the control of the marketing board system in this province, and disguise it by using a little bit of a minor issue. It's typical.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to stand up during these estimates, but after the revelation of yesterday it became clear to me why they were taking the approach they were taking — a deliberate

[ Page 920 ]

cover-up for the backroom power-broking that's going on in this province. To deliberately deceive the voters of this province that they voted for a particular opposition party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. LAUK: They are a negative opposition, Mr. Chairman. What they are doing to this government with its progressive policies, by nitpicking, carping criticism, the people of British Columbia will decide, and they will decide in favour of the government.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I indicated about a week ago that I had been relatively quiet in this debate as it has raged on for two weeks. But I do want to associate myself with the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), when he says that "because of this impasse, the business of this House is at a virtual standstill and has been for a number of days."

Surely that's to be regretted by all of us who have been sent here to do the business of the people of the Province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: I'm looking forward to some helpful interjections and some new lines from that particular Member, Mr. Chairman; I choose to ignore them. But we are at a standstill. The Premier is hurting, the office of the Premier is hurting, and this is apparent to Members of his cabinet, to Members of his caucus and, I think, to an increasing extent to the people of the province.

The Premier has not looked comfortable this week. He has looked extremely uncomfortable at times. I'm only sorry that we couldn't turn the clock back a couple of days when it would have been easier for him perhaps to stand here and say: "Yes, in the first few weeks of my office, in an attempt to correct something which has been bothering a lot of people in the province for quite a while, I called some people together and tried to put the thing in order."

That would have been very easy some time ago, very easy for him to have taken as much time as is necessary to say: "Okay, I was new. There was an awful lot to be done after 20 years of one administration, and this is one where I wanted to help and help quickly and move decisively."

I wonder why the Premier, or perhaps the Premier's pride, would not let him admit that at any point through this entire discussion, including the time that he returned from his visit out of the province several days ago, or earlier this week.

Other Members of the opposition may not be prepared to accept that kind of statement today, but I would be. I don't think it's too late for him to stand up and clarify the situation, to make right what has caused so much concern in the House and outside the House over these last few days.

Yes, the Premier is hurting; and he can laugh it off, or one of his Ministers can rise to his defence, but he is hurting, the office is hurting, the Legislature has stalled, and there is very important work to be done.

I think the thing really fell into place for me on Wednesday evening after the gin rummy game, Mr. Chairman, when I saw the late B.C. TV news between 11 and 12. A television crew had gone onto the street to get some public reaction, and I imagine it was pretty representative.

Some of the people who were filmed showed no interest in the matter at all. Others felt that a lie had been told by someone. Others were critical of the opposition. Others were critical of the Premier. But the last clip, the last person to be shown in that segment on B.C. television news, was an elderly lady, and I gathered that she was on Hornby Street. She said, in answer to the question: "Did you ever see a politician who didn't lie?"

That's the issue. That is really the issue here today, regardless of what party label we carry, or what we have done in offices such as the Premier's office in discussing this thing of so many months ago. This is the reason the leader of the Liberal Party has found it necessary to go to the extreme step — and I'm sure he hasn't enjoyed it — the extreme step of being expelled from this House on two consecutive afternoons.

A lady in Vancouver saying,"Did you ever see a politician who didn't lie?" — that's a damning indictment of why we are here and what we are trying to do. I suggest that there is one man in this room this morning who can help put it right.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I've sat through almost all of this and aside from the kind of threat that that Member carries out on the radio and in the House — "More to come, more to come" — there are certain Members I respond to in different terms because there are certain Members, quite frankly, who I judge differently on the basis of their performance and their statements. I make no apologies for that.

There are some people who I respond to and others I won't respond to in this House — simply based on their performance and their own record. I'm sure they feel the same way about me. No one can come into this House without making judgments of other people and their motivations. We all hold judgments of people's motivations.

About politics, I'm a politician, and I'm proud to be a politician. There have been times when I haven't

[ Page 921 ]

been proud about other politics and other politicians, and perhaps other politics and other politicians feel the same way about me.

I've been in office now 14 years. It's much easier for me to sit back and watch when someone else is in the kind of situation that I'm allegedly in now. I've seen it both ways in the House.

We're talking about a conversation — and I'll deal with that now and then get on to some other comments — that took place 18 months ago. I've said very clearly what I recall of that conversation. Someone else has said very clearly what they recall of that conversation. Now beyond that, the traditional aspect of a Member having his word taken in this House has been completely forgotten by one or two singular Members of this House, who have decided to go beyond the honourableness of a Member to use that as a political issue.

Now I have said clearly.... And I notice, too, that the Member changed his wording to "to the recollection to the best of one's ability" or something to that effect. I've said clearly, honestly and openly what I recalled of that meeting.

It was a very emotional meeting. I did suggest that they come together and I've said that before, and I've suggested, as I said before, that they were acting like children. I wanted them to effect a solution. I did not order a solution. I did not give figures or suggest figures; I suggested that they work out the negotiations between their lawyers.

I am the Premier of the Province....

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I am the Premier of the Province. I have to do my duty as I see it. Now obviously, the opposition has to criticize the way I do my duty; otherwise they wouldn't be a valid opposition. But I've never seen it personalized this way, nor have I ever seen the office of the Premier personalized this way.

Now there is absolutely no way that I am going to alter my position because there is a matter of dignity of the Premier's office involved here. If we allow this to continue to go on, it means that every single time something goes on, we'll go through the same process of: "He lied; you lied; I said; he said." On a conversation 18 months ago, I've given my word to this House, where I owe the obligation.

I don't understand anything beyond the desire of certain Members to make this into a cheap political issue. The accusation I make in that regard is based on the fact that every step of the way one or two Members have gone out of the House — not all — but one or two Members have gone out of the House and gone to the press and said, "Today I'm going to do this; I'm going to do this, and I'm going to do this."

And they've been on the radio saying: "I'm going to do this, and I'm going to do this, and I'm going to do this." They've locked themselves into action, prejudging the situation before any debate took place in the House.

I stated very clearly my position. Yes, the people must decide; it is a democracy. When we face an election, the people will make that decision. But I tell you this: I will sit here under the threat of the opposition that they're making day after day after day, and I will sit here and do my duty and I will not be threatened, cajoled or badgered into playing their level of politics, Mr. Chairman, because it's degrading to this House.

I've gone through a very comfortable few days, and I've enjoyed the comments by many of the Members in the House. It is only natural that there are charges and counter-charges and secret meetings, and who was there and who wasn't there.

I'm not going to say that so-and-so was lying because he said he wasn't at any meetings and someone else said he was at meetings. We don't need a judicial inquiry on whether or not he was lying at the meetings. Maybe it was just cocktail natter or something. Or maybe it was by osmosis — maybe they came together.

But I do know this, Mr. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), through you, Mr. Chairman: one cannot help but assume that part of the motivation is to pull the knife out of your back in this particular debate.

You know, I've heard you go out and tell everybody ahead of time, and say in the newspapers exactly what you are going to do in this House. So regardless of what's said, you are locked into a programme of political vilification. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has stayed out of it, and I respect him for that. But you have locked yourself in to a planned programme that you have said to the press before you come to the House, and no matter what I have said, and no matter what anyone else has said, you don't want to listen. You just want to use this House for politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Political politics.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Political politics, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of the worst kind.

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm proud to be a politician. Certainly I'm proud to be a politician. It is an honourable profession. That's why I've never

[ Page 922 ]

shirked about discussion of salaries; nor have I twisted discussions of salaries, saying: "I'm against large salaries, but don't send the money back." I've always been open on salaries. I've always been open on responsibilities of politicians. I've never shirked those kinds of issues — the old round-robin system and avoiding discussion of what legislators are paid.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the old round-robin system before was used to decide a raise. I came in this House and that's how it used to function. They had a circle with every MLA's name on it, and you had to sign your initials on that round-robin thing to show that if the salary raise went through you wouldn't criticize it in the House. You wouldn't squeal.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, it was an old system in the House. Yes, there was an old system. They used to have the pinwheel.

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

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ah, I know it wasn't in your time, but it was here. No, Mr. Member, I've been straight about that, and I've been straight about my attitude to politics.

I want to say that I'm prepared to do my duty as I see it. I expect to be criticized, and I expect what has gone on here in the last week will probably happen again when I'm in office. So it doesn't upset me that much.

But I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, in finding that after all of this debate there is really no substance other than my opinion and someone else's opinion, and that the Members are prepared to say, based on the honour of the Members in this House, that you are not prepared to take my word. Fair enough. I've said what I have to say. That is my word. You judge me, and let other people judge me.

But I resent the very personalized kind of attack and the sneering and the mockery made of this government and myself by certain opposition Members who, in my opinion, will go low enough to attack people personally. I exclude the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) because I am responding to him on the basis of his statements.

Be that as it may, of all the tinker-toy issues in front of this Legislature, nothing could be more petty than deciding on a difference of opinion as the basis of stalling the work of this House and helping the people of this province.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman, I've lost weight, but for a while there I thought you weren't going to notice me.

I am pleased to take my place because the word "integrity" is very important. There was a man who represented South Okanagan (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) for 30 years in this House that had a lot of integrity, and part of it was loyalty.

Now, remembering back — let's see how important memory is. Let's go back to November 17. I think it was in New Westminster that 2,500 of a movement came together and elected a leader. That's democracy, right? But no, 90 days later, a new party is formed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Premier's estimates.

MR. CUMMINGS: My leader, the Premier, has been attacked on the ground of integrity. I just want to remind other parties what integrity is.

It's not just a handshake, like it is in the Liberals. I think sincerely that the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) should get a lamp like Diogenes and go around. You met this man — is he an honest man? "I met him once; he's honest." Is that integrity?

I think that in this House time has been wasted too long.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I, personally, will be glad when this entire discussion comes to an end and we can get on with the business of the Premier's estimates. I wouldn't like to dilute in any way at all the importance of integrity and honesty.

MR. CUMMINGS: And loyalty.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier and I have sat across the chair from each other in this very room and talked about these things. Until recently I don't think that there is a person in all of the Province of British Columbia across whose mind the thought has come that the Premier of our province is dishonest. I don't believe that that is true. It shouldn't have happened.

[ Page 923 ]

I would like to recommend that the Premier keep this record. I'd like to recommend that he establish an inquiry so that this question no longer exists, because unless he clears his name, the people are going to have to judge. Mr. Premier, they are going to have to judge, and I think if we are to take the responses of the people, already there are a great number of them who are no longer certain that the Premier has been telling the truth.

My personal opinion is that there is no way that he could be indicted. There is no proof that says he has lied. But there is no proof that says he hasn't. Therefore I would like to suggest to the Premier that he go the honourable route. He has nothing to lose — at least I assume he has nothing to lose. Therefore why not clear himself, Mr. Chairman, through the use of the system, and let his name be honourable, not only in this House, but in the province? I think he has nothing to lose, and I suggest that he go this route.

I would further like to suggest, Mr. Premier, to you through the Chair, that I would like to see the end of this discussion for another reason. Long after we have resolved this problem of the integrity of the highest office in this province, we still will have to resolve the problem that has precipitated the whole discussion.

I would suggest that the problem will still be here when we have resolved this part of it. And I would like to suggest that since the Premier's office has been involved one time, at least, in the resolving of the real problem, I would think that his office will be called upon again to make a judgment in this regard. When it happens I would like to make some suggestions.

First of all, I would like to say that I have had no pressure — none. There has been not one letter from any constituent in my constituency asking me to stand on their behalf to get them an unfair share in the egg marketing or the broiler marketing system. Not one.

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

MR. SCHROEDER: Therefore I must assume that the people of my constituency are as interested in a fair distribution as I am. I would like to say that the right or the licence to produce foodstuffs should be distributed evenly throughout the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I think that we're straying into the Agriculture estimates, which are now concluded. I'd ask you to relate your remarks to the Premier's vote.

MR. SCHROEDER: I think, Mr. Chairman, you should allow me the same latitude allowed the rest of the House. I'm making positive suggestions. I know the Premier's office is going to be called again to make a decision in this regard. Therefore, I would suggest that this is going to fall squarely under this discussion, and I beg of you to give to me the latitude that has been given to the rest of the House. Will you do that for me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point I'm drawing you to order on is the fact that you cannot request of one Minister that he influence another Minister's decisions.

MR. SCHROEDER: Dare I suggest that that influence has already taken place, that the Premier has been called upon to make these decisions, that he has already used his office to influence that decision, and that he will be called again to use his influence? The people who are involved have gone past the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm not concerned about what happens between the Ministers; I'm concerned about what happens in the House in terms of procedure. I'm simply saying that the Member, in debating the estimates, cannot ask one Minister to influence another Minister's actions.

MR. SCHROEDER: Right. When the broiler growers and the egg producers come to your office, Mr. Premier, I would suggest you say to them that we have to deal with the entire province, not just with the Interior, not just with the constituency of Chilliwack and Langley, but with the entire province. In helping the province, we cannot say, "Okay, we'll hurt one section in order to help another."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to discuss matters which fall under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture; rather to maintain and keep his remarks confined to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, this looks like discrimination.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member questioning the Chair for making a proper decision?

MR. SCHROEDER: No, I'm not questioning the Chair; I'm just making a judgment on the basis of the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member is not satisfied with the decision of the Chair, he may

[ Page 924 ]

appeal it. I'm simply ruling at this time that the Hon. Member cannot discuss matters which fall under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture except as they pertain to the actions or the responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I happen to know that the Premier's office is going to be called upon to make a decision in this regard, and I am giving what I believe to be a positive suggestion as to what the Premier should take into consideration when that time comes. If that's not part of the Premier's responsibilities, then, Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the process of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the marketing boards fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I am not concerned about the actions that take place between Ministers outside of this House. I'm concerned only with what the Member is saying in his place. That is that he's asking the Minister whose estimates we're considering to influence another Minister's actions. I'm saying that under the rules of the House, this is not allowed. Otherwise we could be questioning every Minister about every other Minister's estimates. This simply can't be done. So I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier or his past actions.

MR. SCHROEDER: All right. When these gentlemen were called to the Premier's office at the Premier's invitation, and the Premier who made certain statements, according to the affidavit, when he made those statements it would have been wise for him perhaps to have considered that in trying to absolve the problem he should have considered at least these other factors. In trying to solve the distribution problem, rather than to consider just segments of the province he should have considered the province as a whole. I would have agreed with him that the distribution of food products should be considered as a whole and it is not proper to make a judgment in regard to one area of the province with disregard to the other.

In coming to a proper conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow me, it would be far better to take into consideration the increased consumption in eggs and broilers in the areas where this extra consumption occurs and allow extra quotas to be assigned to those areas. This way the quotas will not be taken from where they now exist and placed in another area; rather the extra quotas will be assigned to the new areas.

If we confiscate quota where it is now, then my opinion is that we would have to make compensation for the perhaps $350 a case paid for this quota. However, if we assign new quota to new areas, then those new areas will have the opportunity to produce the food in their own area as long as at the same time we provide processing plants and packaging plants for them so that it becomes economically feasible. I suggest that this is the route you take.

As far as the whole deal with Mr. Kovachich and whether or not he produced more eggs than his quota allowed, whether or not he had a levy, whether or not he had a tax, whether or not it was a fine he was asked to pay, whether or not it was right for the Premier to allow a discount in this regard, let that not be part of the conclusion. Let the conclusion be this: let's come to a positive solution as to how we can solve this thing. If not, then this war will range long after this parliament ceases.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, the Premier made a highly emotional speech in defence of his office and of his conduct. He implied in. that speech that the leader of the Liberal Party and some of the Members of the opposition were making a mockery of this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, I resent that implication. I've said, as other Members of the opposition have said, that no issue now or at any time in the future will surmount that of integrity in government.

Emotional speeches of the Premier will not wash away the harsh facts laid before this assembly, nor can failure to recall details of a conversation. No matter how discrepant recollections may be, we are left with ugly realities that must be faced.

The Premier in his defence, the Ministers of the Crown who have joined that defence and the one or two backbenchers who have joined in the defence have all told us that the marketing system in British Columbia for eggs and broiler birds was unfair. It may be. We on the opposition side are quite prepared to concede that. But, Mr. Chairman, what was done in the Premier's office and afterwards in an office under the supervision of the Minister of Agriculture was not to change the rules for egg marketing in British Columbia. What was done was to give an individual favour to one producer in British Columbia — one man at the meeting, a known supporter of the New Democratic Party. That was not changing the general rules for production in British Columbia; that was doing a personal favour.

The Legislative Assembly sat in October of 1972; it sat in January of 1973; it sat in October of 1973; it is sitting now in March of 1974. During all of those

[ Page 925 ]

meetings of this Legislative Assembly, when the laws could have been changed and when these arguments could have been prevented, not once was any attempt made to readjust this marketing system. It was left, Mr. Chairman, an individual favour to a supporter of the New Democratic Party.

MR. LIDEN: Do you support David Anderson?

MR. McGEER: The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) asks if I support the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). Mr. Chairman, there is only one leader in British Columbia today and only one leader in this Legislative Assembly. Unfortunately, it is not the Premier; it is the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

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

MR. McGEER: The Premier of this province has brought the whole Legislative Assembly into question. He has done it, Mr. Chairman...

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

MR. McGEER: ...by consistently refusing to set for himself the same standards as he has demanded of others. I refer to the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder); I refer to the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan); I refer to the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips); and I refer to the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland).

Each one of those Members has been dealt with either by executive action of the Premier or by motion introduced in this House. With the exception of the Member for Atlin, those individual Members have had opportunities, or will have opportunities, to state their case and have their names cleared. We have appealed to the Premier to abide by the same standards he has set for others.

If he is unwilling to do that, Mr. Chairman, then he does lower this Legislative Assembly to the new standards he has set for himself. I regret that, Mr. Chairman, deeply.

The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has made statements outside of this chamber. He has given direct answers to direct questions, as any Member should do, and as the Premier has done on dozens of occasions in the corridors.

Mr. Chairman, the leader of the Liberal Party has not locked himself into any course of action. On every occasion he has pleaded with the Premier to take this matter out of the House and put it before a judicial inquiry, where it properly should be.

He has done one further thing, Mr. Chairman: he has staked his personal seat on the outcome of that integrity. Will the Premier, Mr. Chairman, do the same? We haven't heard that from the Premier. We haven't heard from him the same standards of conduct that the leader of the Liberal Party is prepared to set for himself.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I support the leader of the Liberal Party as the leader of British Columbia, because he has set the highest standards of anyone in the House. He has understood the issue better than anyone in the House, and he has shown more courage by far than the Premier of this province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have asked one direct question repeatedly of the Premier, which he has never directly denied nor agreed with nor pleaded amnesia for. He has never answered that question. I repeat it once more. Did he or did he not say to Mr. Brunsdon and the other members of the Egg Marketing Board, "If you repeat a word of this outside my office, I will deny every word I said"?

I want to hear an answer to that direct question, not an emotional speech about, "I will do my duty as I see fit, and I have done my duty." It has been established, Mr. Chairman, that the actions taken by the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and, through them, the Egg Marketing Board were illegal actions not covered by any order-in-council or by any piece of legislation passed in this Legislative Assembly. The levies were legal levies.

MR. LEWIS: How do you know?

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

MR. McGEER: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) earlier today pointed out how this kind of action...

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

MR. McGEER: ...breaks down completely the ability of an Egg Marketing Board to function. Why should any other member accept treatment that was different than that accorded to the friend and supporter of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Sy Kovachich? Can the Attorney-General answer that question? Let him answer so directly, and let the Premier deal with the one question I have repeatedly asked him: did he or did he not say to Mr. Brunsdon and the other members of the Egg Marketing Board, "If you say anything about this outside my office, I will deny every word of it"?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Well, I have listened to this debate for quite a number of days now too. I quite frankly find it regrettable that we see the House degenerate into the posture of

[ Page 926 ]

Members hurling all kinds of rather insulting accusations across the floor at one another. The Member who just took his seat made the comment that the Legislature has been reduced to the level which the Premier has set for himself. You know, that's a particularly insulting remark.

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

HON. MR. KING: It certainly indicates that the Liberal Party has convicted the Premier of some misdemeanor without any investigation or without...

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: He has not given one.

HON. MR. KING: The Premier has, on a number of occasions, specifically denied the charges contained in the affidavits. You know, I just want to reiterate for the House the position that the Premier or any Minister is in, and particularly my own position when I become involved in labour disputes in the role of mediation, which this House expects me to do — which, indeed, the public of British Columbia expects me to do when all other avenues fail.

I don't think there would be any criticism whatsoever if I used my office to prevail, to cajole or even to lean on the parties to take a more responsible position so that a settlement might be consummated and a strike averted.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I plead guilty to doing that. I certainly have laid the wood to many groups and to trade unions to have them take a more responsible position, a more conciliatory position, to resolve their differences.

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

HON. MR. KING: Now the Premier has said to you that he suggested these people were acting like children; they should go out and resolve their differences. They had legal counsel; both were represented by legal counsel. If there is anything improper in that posture, I certainly don't discern it. I hardly think it justifies the kind of climate that has been developed here that some criminal conspiracy took place.

What is it all about? It's a question of trying to resolve a difference in the farming community between an Egg Marketing Board that was under heavy fire and criticism by the people that it represented and the interests of the individual farmers in the north and in the Interior of the province.

Now if we're going to say to the Premier or any Minister that it's too dangerous a role for you to play to try and help people to resolve their problems, then you are saying to me as the Minister of Labour that I cannot ever again, for fear of being charged with some indiscreet use of political muscle, use my office in an effort to try to bring about a harmonious climate in industrial relations in this province.

If a trade union walks out of my office, discontented with the settlement they have achieved, and says that "King leaned on us; King put the hammer on us," and swears an affidavit to that effect, where do we go then — through a judicial inquiry?

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

HON. MR. KING: Go through a House committee? I certainly will tell the truth as the Premier is doing. But the point is I have in fact done this kind of thing. I've done it from the outset of taking over this office. Are you reasonably suggesting that I should remember every conversation that took place in my office? Some of them were hot; some of them were not. If you're going to demand that I precisely recall every word spoken in those discussions, then the only answer is that you are suggesting I should tape the meetings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

HON. MR. KING: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has referred to the Watergate. He's tried to relate this silly, petty incident to the Watergate. That is childish; that's just plain foolishness.

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

HON. MR. KING: But, by golly, I think the real danger here is that if we go the route he's suggesting, the government people, Ministers and the Premier would have no alternative but to precisely record every conversation held in their office — because that would be the only line of defence.

Let's examine, Mr. Chairman, what the possibilities are of an inquiry. Let's examine what the possibilities are. A trade union comes forward and says I used my office and my influence improperly to effect a settlement. They swear out an affidavit.

If we go through a House committee and I stand accused of improper conduct and impropriety in the use of my office and I'm vindicated, the opposition are quite free as they have done in the past to cry, "It was established on partisan political lines; it wasn't a fair adjudication of the question."

[ Page 927 ]

So the only other avenue is by judicial inquiry that someone has suggested. What could be the probable results of a judicial inquiry into a question of that nature: a charge by a union against me, and my retraction to the best of my knowledge, based on my honour in this House, that I acted properly. There is no conclusive evidence; there's no record, verbatim or otherwise. It's simply the word of one or two people on one side against the word of one or two people on the other side.

Let's presume that civil servants were involved: my Deputy Minister of Labour. I think it would be fair to suggest that he might support my point of view as a description of what took place.

Where, then, would that leave us? You could only have an inconclusive report and conclusion arrived at. They would be in the position, then, when the opposition would say: "Well, the Minister leaned on his Deputy to support his case."

So there is absolutely no avenue; there is no way a question of this nature can be determined conclusively in any way. It's a man's word against another's. The whole problem is that the Liberals are completely unwilling to accept the word of the Premier under any circumstances. They have an escape hatch, no matter which route they suggest the government go on this question. If it's the house committee route, they shriek partisan politics.

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

HON. MR. KING: If it's a judicial inquiry, they could allege that civil servants had been whipped into line by the government. So it shows that there's absolutely no valid, reasonable way that a clear and conclusive determination can be made on this question. It's simply a man's word against another's.

The leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) agrees, I'm sure, that when a Member gets up in this House and gives his word, that word should be taken unless conclusive evidence can be tabled in this House that he has, in fact, lied. That just is not the situation. It may be the situation in the Liberal leader's mind, but I suggest that it's unsupported by any conclusive evidence, and it's even unsupported, I would suggest, by the majority of British Columbians.

So I would suggest, in all deference to all Members' feelings, that we leave this rather phony issue and get back to the business of the House. Certainly I have programmes under my department that I would like to see estimated with some searching scrutiny by the opposition. Let's get on with the business and provide the service to the people of British Columbia that we were elected to perform.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): The Minister of Labour has put a proposition before this committee which cannot be left unchallenged. He said we were not prepared to accept the word of the Hon. Premier on any basis. That just is not true, Mr. Chairman. We are obliged under the standards of conduct in this House to accept the word of an Hon. Member unless it's challenged.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll come to that in just a moment. "Unless that word is challenged." I think that's precisely the issue we have here. The Hon. Premier has stood in this House and made statements, unsworn, unsubstantiated by his Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who was at the meeting. (He has been strangely silent.) Against that we have the sworn statements of two citizens of this province, tabled in this House. If the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has not seen fit to read those sworn statements, then I suggest it is time that he take that opportunity.

It creates the conflict which leads us into a position where we have some basis to compare the statements made by the Premier here in this House. We've chosen to accept the sworn statements of two individuals who have no axe to grind, no position to take.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Minister of Labour also suggests that the House committee would be a fruitless method of resolving this, and everyone on all sides of the House agrees with that. But for the Minister of Labour to suggest that a commission of inquiry where all people would come and give their evidence under oath is not a way to resolve the situation indicates quite clearly why the Minister of Labour in his various actions in this House has seemed to shy away from the courts. He doesn't understand the basis of proof; he doesn't understand the consequences of false testimony under oath.

MR. CUMMINGS: How about loyalty?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He doesn't understand that if his Deputy Minister, as he suggests, came before a commission of inquiry, the Deputy Minister would be sworn — and I don't care what kind of pressure the Minister placed upon his Deputy — that Deputy would tell the truth. That's the way these things are resolved.

To suggest we have to tape every meeting is absolutely ridiculous. Every day, Mr. Chairman, — and the Minister of Labour knows this well — citizens of this province, of this nation, who are in conflict with other citizens and in conflict with their governments, appear before judges in the courts of

[ Page 928 ]

our land, and those differences are resolved based upon sworn testimony, which in most cases does not involve any recording. It depends upon the recollection of individuals and the standards of proof which are the result of centuries of experience in British law.

To suggest the commission of inquiry would not resolve this difficulty is incompetent on the part of that Minister. To suggest that after a commission of inquiry were held and sworn testimony were given and a finding is made by the commissioner, that Members of this House could suggest there were some influence, some error in that commission, indicates that the Minister does not know what contempt means.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Contempt. Legal contempt. Because this is precisely the position that an individual would find himself in if he were to challenge the actions of the commission.

Interjection.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Let's come back to the issue which again the Minister of Labour has tried to cloud. We know he meets in his office with groups; no question about that. Under the laws of this province he has the right, the authority, indeed the obligation, to do so. But what we have here is not the Premier meeting with the Egg Marketing Board; only with two members of the board. It was not for the purpose of discussing with those members changes the government contemplated in order to make the board work properly as the Premier saw it. It was not designed to inform the members of the Egg Marketing Board that the government proposed to introduce changes in the scheme in line with the Garrish report to which the Premier has referred. That's not the purpose of the meeting, Mr. Chairman — and the Minister of Labour knows full well. The purpose of the meeting was to resolve a conflict between one egg producer and the board. The one egg producer, Mr. Chairman.... Let me stop there.

The Minister says that's not true. Was the Minister of Labour at the meeting? I'm relying upon sworn statements. Is the Minister of Labour prepared to swear that he knows what took place in that meeting? Has he been advised? On whose recollection has he been advised?

Has he talked to the Minister of Agriculture who was present? Because the Minister of Agriculture doesn't recall. The Minister of Agriculture has been guilty — no, not guilty — he's been drinking the milk of amnesia; this is what the Minister of Agriculture has been doing.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) does not know, so he can't say that that's not true. But I'll tell you that Mr. Brunsdon knows what happened. He was there, and he's given sworn statements as to what took place. Mr. Unger was there, and he's given sworn statements as to what took place. We have not had a denial by the Premier of those sworn statements. He has not stood in this House or any place else and denied the statements in those affidavits.

It was suggested earlier in the debate across the floor from the Attorney-General that what was to be resolved was a dispute between this one egg producer — that's admitted — and the board...of a court case. Why would the Premier of the province interfere in the settlement of a matter between the board and a producer, which was in the courts of this province? Are we now being told by the Attorney-General that the Premier is interfering with the courts of this province? Is he going to interfere with the rights of the citizens to have their remedies in the courts of this province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

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

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A contested thing, and the Premier said, according to a sworn affidavit, "There'll be no court case." That's what the Premier said in connection with Sy Kovachich, and it's sworn by Mr. Brunsdon. Don't you believe Mr. Brunsdon, Mr. Chairman through you to the Attorney-General? If you don't believe Mr. Brunsdon, Mr. Attorney-General, then I suggest that you have a responsibility under the law to have him answer for these sworn statements.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, how do you know? Have you made an investigation as to whether he knew they were false? Did he make them knowing them to be false? Have you taken any steps at all? A public inquiry will establish not only whether they were made, knowing them to be false; it will establish whether the Premier is telling the truth, and it will establish whether or not the Premier's office Was being used for influence. Of course it will.

[ Page 929 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will establish who has the best memory, that's all.

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

Then are we to understand from the Hon. Attorney-General that in his view of the resolution of problems of this kind, if the Egg Marketing Board's memory happens to be very good, and the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture find it convenient to have a bad memory, somehow or other that excuses the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture?

The Attorney-General, a very competent counsel, practising in the courts of this province, knows perfectly well how carefully matters of truth are searched out in the courts of this land. Is what I'm saying untrue, Mr. Attorney-General?

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, I take that back. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to withdraw the words "good counsel." The Attorney-General feels embarrassed by that.

But let us not be distracted by this wit from the Attorney-General. He too has failed in his responsibility in this matter. He has failed most miserably as the chief law officer of the Crown, as the government's lawyer, to advise the Premier how this matter can be resolved. It's a clear issue between the Premier, his office and citizens of this province. I urge the Hon. Attorney-General to reconsider, advise the Premier, and take the only action that can remove this cloud from this issue and from the Premier's office.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, I haven't had much to say on this matter; but I do stand in my place today and ask for a public inquiry on this matter, because there is a terrible cloud of suspicion over the highest office in this province, and that is the office of Premier.

Never before has a Premier in this province been called a liar — been called a liar inside this assembly and outside as well. It's very degrading, in my opinion, for that office, regardless of who is holding that position, to be accused, the way it is accused at this time, of not telling the truth.

I think there's a very genuine need to clear the air in this province as to who is telling the truth in this matter. It's not a question as simple as the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) might interpret it to be, as to a conflict of opinion. But it is that shadow of suspicion which the Premier of this province has been facing for the last several days, and that suspicion will not evaporate.

That suspicion will be over his head, unless there is a public inquiry, forever after. It's not only demeaning; it's debasing. It's a lowering of the esteem for the position of Premier in the Province of British Columbia, to have this cloud of suspicion over the Premier's head.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: This is the first time I've heard some chit-chat from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) over there. But this is the first time that I've stood and said anything on this issue.

I'm not going to call the Premier a liar — definitely not — because I recognize him as a straightforward, honest and reputable individual. But his name and the position of the Premier has been jeopardized, and there is definitely a need to remove this doubt which exists today. The only way this doubt can be resolved is by a public inquiry.

If the Premier believes that he is telling the truth, and I know he does, then by all means let's have the inquiry. Let's resolve this issue once and for all, and get on with the business of running the affairs of the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: The comments of the Member for Columbia River are apparently reasonable, but there are some points that I could raise in questioning his approach to this particular problem, or alleged problem.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), however...his remarks cannot go unanswered. He is a lawyer; we all know he is a lawyer. He spoke, apparently with knowledge, about judicial inquiries, apparently with knowledge about the law of evidence, hinting at some knowledge about the trial system.

But I confess that he betrays a lack of knowledge that makes me fear that if Ottawa, in its wisdom, appointed him a judge, someone would have to lead him by the hand to show him where the courthouse was.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: I have a great deal more experience in the courtroom, my friend, than you have.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm sorry to be distracted by the Member's comment, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to point out in a practical way where he has made his mistake in outlining what a judicial inquiry is, and his knowledge of the law.

[ Page 930 ]

In the British parliamentary system, which from it, and coincidentally, grew our system of British jurisprudence, the questions of credibility of Members of parliament are judged and kept within the four corners of the House always. That is the rule. That is the convention. Members' credibility within this House and their actions in office are kept within the four corners of these walls unless some criminal act has been committed, and then a charge is duly laid and the judicial process takes place.

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

MR. GIBSON: Nonsense.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's not nonsense. You just have to read your constitutional law and you would know; but you haven't, obviously.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Spencer inquiry?

HON. MR. LAUK: The Spencer inquiry concerned a person that was not a Member of the House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: It concerned a person who was not a Member of the House. That shows you how much you do not know about the parliamentary system in this country.

Mr. Chairman, let me say this: Why is it a rule of the House that questions of credibility and a Member's honour are maintained within the four walls here? Because there's a principle in the British parliamentary system which says that parliament is supreme; they are the law makers of the land and they, in effect, will not be judged by the courts of which they are masters.

Now, what happens if we have a judicial inquiry, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)? You are placing one man as judge of the credibility of a Member of this House, which has never historically been tolerated. Never. If there's a question of credibility, this House judges it. This House judges it, and nowhere else. And in the final analysis, the people of British Columbia judge whether this House was correct or not. That's the system of British parliamentary action. You do not put yourself or any Member of this House before a court of law. That has been respected on this side of the House, and it should be respected on that side of the House, because it works both ways, Mr. Chairman. We can have countless judicial inquiries. And what will happen when we have a judicial inquiry? One man will make a judgment, Mr. Chairman.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll tell you what's wrong with that, Mr. Member. One man, in the last few days, has already made a judgment. A man with a legal background, a man with some sort of experience in life — he's made a judgment. He's made a judgment hearing one side of the case and hearing the denial by the Premier. And he has the hypocrisy to stand up in this House and demand a judicial inquiry. "A solemn inquiry into the truth," says the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. A solemn inquiry into the truth, when already his own leader has made a judgment on his own.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the word "hypocrisy" as applied to an Hon. Member of this House.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is clear what would happen at such a judicial inquiry: they would call as witnesses the members who have filed their sworn affidavits and filed them on this table; they would call as witnesses the Premier, and various civil servants would appear before them. And we'd have a lawyer such as the Second Member for West Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) who I read in Hansard as saying: "Were you or were you not 10 feet from the Minister of Agriculture? Were you having tea? Were you wearing a polka-dot tie?" And he went on and on. He was playing junior Perry Mason, Mr. Chairman.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: There'd be a question of credibility, and then the judge — or whoever's appointed to make such a judicial inquiry, whom I assume would be a judge — would do the job of this House in deciding its own destiny, its own credibility. It's a denial of the democratic system to call for a judicial inquiry. Otherwise, the situation, as outlined just a few minutes ago by the Minister of Labour, would concern every Minister on this side of the House. It would only bring into question whether or not this House can control its affairs and legislate for this province according to the democratic system.

If you realize that, then I say your call for a judicial inquiry, Mr. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, through you, Mr. Chairman, is an attempt to sabotage the workings of this House.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): All during the time that we have been engaged in the debate on the estimates of the Minister of Finance and Premier of this province, I have tried to limit my remarks to

[ Page 931 ]

issues that I genuinely feel I have an opinion on or ideas different to those expressed and the policies expressed by the Premier. Though, at this time I want to deal for a few moments with this whole matter that has really come to a head these last few days.

Prior to the time I was able to get your eye, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour entered into the debate. I hope when the Minister of Labour used phrases like "a silly, petty incident" and a "phony issue" that was just an unfortunate choice of words because, really, what we have is neither a silly, petty incident nor a phony issue.

We have before us, in sworn testimony affidavits — the word of two men, a Mr. Brunsdon and a Mr. Unger, who make very specific allegations as to coercion by the chief person in the government of this province, namely the Premier — that they were coerced by him to do certain things in a certain manner.

The Premier has indicated time and again that he does not recall using any force, coercion, or in any way directing or instructing these people. Yet the same person has consistently refused to go the one step that would allow an independent judicial inquiry to settle the matter once and for all.

The reason that we are at this impasse, as I see it this morning, is that there is a cloud involved with respect to whether the people who swore the affidavits, or the Premier himself, is telling the truth. I suggest that the matter of this chicken-and-egg war, as it's been referred to in this House, is really just an outward manifestation of a much deeper problem in the Province of British Columbia. It's an outward manifestation of a problem that we are faced with today as a result of what I would term cavalier adventurism on the part of the present government and some of the Ministers of the Crown.

There's been a departure from the standard practice and procedure of taking the responsibility and the oath of office as a very serious matter on the part of some of the cabinet Ministers in this province. That is reflected in the eyes and the minds of the public today.

There's been a trend towards adventurism in the marketplace. There's a trend toward adventurism in the purchase of companies entirely unrelated, really, to the business of government. There's a trend toward assigning absolute control to boards which, once they are established, are no longer responsible to this Legislative Assembly. We place them outside of the law of the province, and in some cases the weight of the majority of government has passed laws that actually place certain boards in this province above and beyond the call of the courts of this land.

This is why I feel this particular matter has all come to a head, that there's a centralization of this as a result of a conversation which took place in the Premier's office. The incident itself is not the important issue. It's really just a centralization and a crystallization of a number of incidents which have been very disturbing to the public of this province.

It would seem to me that the Premier, in order to restore the confidence of the people in the highest office of this province, would take seriously the recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) when he has called for a judicial inquiry into this whole matter. It's a serious request, and, as the Premier well knows, those of us who have engaged in the debate of his estimates from the official opposition have not tried to smear the position of the Premier, or in any way suggest that we were trying to capitalize on an event which was unfortunate.

But, in my opinion, we're now at the place where something more must be done than just to try to wash the issue away. It won't wash away. I would suggest once more that the only way the issue now be resolved is for the Premier to call a judicial inquiry into the matter.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the Hon. Member for North Peace River in this debate. One of the characteristics, I think, of the debate as it has been developing in the last couple of days, one of the significant points, is that each of the opposition parties has come to support this call for a public inquiry. I think that by now virtually every Member of the opposition has stood in their seat and personally supported this concept. I'm going to dwell on it a little further.

I'm sorry the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has left his seat because I wanted to comment on something he said. I was surprised to see him giving a lesson in the law to the distinguished counsel from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). I won't attempt to tell him the law, but I do have sufficient knowledge to read a statute.

When the Hon. Minister says that the Public Inquiries Act is not the right way to resolve a question of this kind, he clearly hasn't read the Public Inquiries Act, which notes, among other things, that: "Whenever the Lieutenant-Governor in Council deems it expedient to cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter relating to the election of any member of the Legislative Assembly, past or present, or into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of the Province, or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof...."

That's a part of the terms of reference of the Public Inquiries Act, which of course is an Act passed by this House under the authority of the Legislature. For the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to pretend that a commissioner under this Act is not competent to go into this matter

[ Page 932 ]

simply shows that he hasn't read the law.

The Act says further that such a commission of inquiry:

"...shall report to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council what they find with reference to the matters comprised within the inquiry.

"(2) Every report which Commissioners make to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under this Act shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within fifteen days after the report is made, if the Legislative Assembly is then sitting, or if not, then within fifteen days after the opening of the next session of the Legislative Assembly."

So it is quite clear that the Legislature is supreme and that the Legislature decides what view it will take of that report.

I'm glad the Minister is coming back now. Perhaps he'll take the opportunity of reading those remarks. If he has a copy of the Public Inquiries Act behind him, he might look it up for himself right now.

Mr. Chairman, it has been possible during this debate to become very emotional about this issue in this House. But if you talk to the people in the real world, they aren't really very emotional about this issue. If you talk to the housewives and the taxi drivers and the person on the street, what do they say? They don't get excited about it. They say, "Oh, maybe the Premier lied. But all kinds of politicians lie. What's new about that?" And that is sad, Mr. Chairman. Anything that contributes to that kind of thinking in the Province of British Columbia is sad.

I'm a brand-new MLA, and there are a lot of things I have to learn about this House. But I do know that it shouldn't be a place where people come to tell lies to each other. I know that much. The label "politician" should be an honourable one. Many Members in this House have worked to make it so; and I think few have worked harder to make it so than the Premier, over the many years he has been in this House. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), who spoke earlier, and many, many Members in this House have worked to add as much shine as they could to the word "politician."

So if a politician makes a mistake — and in that, Mr. Chairman, I would include the Premier — why not admit it and retain that honour? Surely the Premier's honour is more important than a temporary embarrassment — which it would be — or than the Premier's dignity, which he mentioned this morning. These things are important, but honour and a man's word are more important.

If you look at the elements of this case, there are three elements. There is an allegation — and, in my view, a probability — that this has been, from time to time, a government which has pushed people around in meetings behind closed doors, and sought to do things, and caused organizations and persons in this province to do things by secret muscle that they should have had the guts to stand up and do in public. All the power in the world to direct the marketing boards is contained in the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, but they chose not to go that public route. So that's the first issue.

The second issue is the matter of the Premier's word and the fact that four affidavits were sworn; four affidavits which are at direct odds on several points with the quite clear recollections of the Premier in Hansard about meetings and what he did or did not direct to be done.

And then there is Mr. Kovachich, Mr. Chairman. We couldn't get answers from the Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) about Mr. Kovachich and how it happened that, as a result of that meeting in the Premier's office, his assessment, his fine, his levy was reduced. We couldn't get answers from the Premier. But strangely enough, last night we got some answers from the newspaper. The Vancouver Sun of March 7 tells us some things about Mr. Kovachich and the history of this case that we have been trying to get from the government for well over a week now. I would just like to give a little bit of that history.

According to The Vancouver Sun of March 7, Mr. Kovachich

"...started his farm in 1966 with 4,000 birds and increased the size to 6,000 later in the year. That was before the Egg Marketing Board was formed...."

The board, when it was formed in 1967, apparently allotted him a quota of 52 cases,

"...enough to take care of his 6,000 layers at that time, with the promise that the quota would increase as the local market expanded....

"After Kovachich attracted widespread publicity in the local media, the board reluctantly boosted the quota to 80 cases while issuing a letter to the press attacking Kovachich....

"In 1969-70 Kovachich began expanding again but this time was faced with firm opposition from the board, which insisted that if he wanted to increase production, he would have to buy out somebody else's quota."

Though it's a question here as to whether that is right or wrong, that's a question which has been gone over often. I'm talking now about the case of what favours were given.

"Kovachich ignored the board's refusal and began overproducing by an estimated 30 per cent. The board, in turn, slapped him with a penalty of 20 to 30 cents for every dozen he produced over his quota.

"The penalty, in addition to the board levies that Kovachich stopped paying in 1971, amounted to $21,300."

[ Page 933 ]

This coincides, of course, well with the amount alluded to in the affidavit filed by Mr. Brunsdon and the other affidavit filed by Mr. Unger.

"After Kovachich refused to pay any part of that sum, Morgan" — that would be the secretary of the Egg Marketing Board — "visited Dawson Creek and met Randall. That meeting resulted in Tuesday's affidavit" — referring to another affidavit concerning the conduct of the secretary of egg board.

But on the matter of the fines:

"The board took the issue to court, and Kovachich was preparing to appeal in provincial court in Vancouver when the New Democratic Party won the provincial election in August, 1972.

"According to Kovachich, the board agreed to an out-of-court settlement on October, 1972, shortly after the new administration took office....

"Under the terms of the out-of-court settlement, Kovachich's penalty was cut to $7,500 from $21,300 and could be paid in $125-a-month instalments for five years at 5 per cent interest." That is a rate of interest which many people in British Columbia would like to have the advantage of. The ordinary person, of course, wanting to build a house in British Columbia can't get funds from the provincial government at 5 per cent interest.

"In addition, Kovachich was granted a permit to produce 120 cases a week on top of his 80-case quota."

Now that's a very interesting figure. I wish the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) was in his seat because he could perhaps enlighten us. He said in the House the other day that his 140 cases were worth $42,000. A quota has that kind of value, which would imply that a case of quota is worth $300. If it is true that Mr. Kovachich was granted — oh, there's the Hon. Member for Shuswap. He may be able to confirm this.

If it's true that Mr. Kovachich was, in fact, at that time granted a permit to produce 120 cases a week on top of his 80 cases a week, then in addition to the benefit of $13,800 that came from the reduction in the fine, what we would seem to have here is another benefit to Mr. Kovachich of $36,000 — if that's what egg quotas are worth.

Now it may be that this increase in quota would have been awarded according to the natural march of events. But we haven't been able to get any Member of the government to stand in his place and say that, or even give us this much detail.

Now there's obviously a very serious situation here. The story says that the northern egg producers association claims there were 70 to 80 producers, northern egg producers, in 1967 and that there are now only six or seven, and that this group has apparently voted to withdraw from the Egg Marketing Board and began withholding their board fees January 1.

Mr. Chairman, when the government has had the Garrish report since October, 1972, as the Premier has advised us, which recommended that things be done to improve the administration of the Egg Marketing Board, which the government has the power to do in law through the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, and when they have let this situation happen where 70 to 80 northern producers have dwindled down to six or seven, and when they say that they have been doing the things that they have been doing to assist the egg producers, that story somehow doesn't ring entirely true with me.

What particularly doesn't ring true is the Kovachich question and the apparent benefits which he received from the government and the fact that he was a supporter of the government. It is a very curious coincidence.

I'd like to ask the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman — Members on this side have asked the Premier many questions; I don't think he has been asked this one yet — has the Premier met face to face with Mr. Kovachich on this subject? Or has he discussed this subject with him by telephone, or by correspondence? I hope the Premier will answer that question later on.

Earlier on in this debate the Premier said very clearly what he recalled about this meeting in 1972. He does seem to have quite a good recollection, but it doesn't seem to be complete. Then he went on to say,"Somebody else has said very clearly what he recalls." In fact, two other people have said very clearly what they recall in sworn affidavits that coincide remarkably closely.

Then the Premier went on to say that some Members of the opposition have chosen not to take his word over the other words. Surely, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, you would agree with me that the fact of directly conflicting words, and the fact that part of the conflict consists of two sworn affidavits, at least raises a question about your word.

The Premier has referred to the desire of certain Members of this House to make this into a cheap political issue. I would say the opposition is dealing with this issue pretty seriously, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) said that we are trying to convict the Premier without an investigation. Mr. Minister, that's all we want — an investigation. The Minister of Labour said that the Premier has specifically answered the questions. The Premier has not specifically answered the questions. If the Minister would study the affidavit, he would know at once that the Premier had not.

The Premier yesterday in this House, Mr. Chairman, accused the opposition of having made a

[ Page 934 ]

"calculated political move," and he had reference to the fact that the leader of the Liberal Party stood up in this House and told the truth and was seeking the truth.

What methods would the Premier suggest for getting at the truth in this case? He has refused an inquiry. He's refused a committee. He's refused the possibility of witnesses being called to the bar of this House. He has refused to answer questions himself.

There are four people out of two meetings who have sworn affidavits. Then there's the Premier and the Minister of Finance. Then there are another 10 people who have something to say about this case, Mr. Chairman, who can clear up this case if ways can be found to take their testimony. The Premier has a duty to do that.

Instead he sits there with a majority and stone-walls any attempt by this House to roll over some of those rocks and let the sun shine in.

I honestly think, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier regrets this. I think he would dearly love to have it over. I say to him once again that he has before him the means to have it over, to appoint under the Public Inquiries Act, which is expressly designed for cases like this kind, an impartial judicial inquiry that will take it out of this House and allow the House to get on with the business of the people in a way that cannot be done until this question of the word and good name of the Premier is resolved.

MR. CHABOT: Earlier in the day I suggested support for the Leader of the Opposition regarding a public inquiry in this matter. It was done in good faith in the hope that it would clear up this matter and remove the cloud from the position of the Premier of this province.

However, certain developments have taken place since then. I have listened to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), and he spoke as an authority. In fact, he told us while speaking that he had substantially more courtroom experience than any of the other lawyers in this chamber — more courtroom experience than the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

Well, I have to respect that kind of ability and that type of experience and that kind of knowledge expressed by the Minister. In so doing, the Minister suggested that a public inquiry, a judicial inquiry, was not the way to resolve this dispute. He suggested that it must be done within the confines of these four walls.

Well, I'll support that too. What is wrong then? And I want to thank you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, for the suggestion, and I will support the suggestion, you have put forward that this issue be resolved within the confines of these four walls.

Now there happens to be a little bar down at that end of the chamber for the purpose of calling witnesses to bring in testimony to make certain statements. They are under oath when they are behind that bar. What is wrong, as the Minister suggested, in using the Members of this assembly as a jury of 53 where we can question people as to the veracity of certain statements? There should be nothing wrong with that. It was suggested by the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) — and the Premier as well made a similar suggestion yesterday — that this matter can be resolved in this assembly by calling witnesses before the bar of this House. The Leader of the Opposition also.

There is growing support for this kind of an approach, and I want to thank the Minister for bringing it forward again today, because he recognizes that there is a need to clear up the suspicion that hangs not only over the Premier, his office, but over this assembly as well.

I would like to ask the Premier if he is willing at this time to call witnesses before the bar of this chamber to remove the kind of conflict that exists.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's interesting indeed that the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said that I should read the Public Inquiries Act. I've done several inquiries under the Public Inquiries Act. And I thought maybe all these years I had misread the section, but I didn't, Mr. Chairman. A public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act is strictly to enter into an inquiry of the conduct of people outside of this House, not within it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Read the section and how it's been interpreted by the courts for many, many years, Mr. Member. A public inquiry is only an inquiry into allegations of bribery and so on in terms of public officials.... Read section 3 — it has nothing to do with the conduct of Members of this House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Member is bolting for the door, Mr. Chairman — sit down. Get your pen out, and I'll give you some citations. You can read these cases which say that section 3 cannot be interpreted as meaning the conduct of anyone in this House. As far as calling Members before the bar, that's only when there's contempt of this House, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). When there's a dispute in this House and someone outside it, you can't call Members before the bar for that purpose whatsoever.

Interjection.

[ Page 935 ]

MR. GARDOM: I just want to refer to this one specific question raised by the Hon. Minister. He invited the answer, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). Is there anything wrong with that? Certainly not.

Now, what the Hon. Minister did not read to you good following people over there is this. It reads this way:

"Commissions of Inquiry.

"Whenever the Lieutenant-Governor in Council deems it expedient to cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter relating to the election of any member of the Legislative Assembly, past or present...."

Now, Mr. Attorney-General, you have a caucus meeting with your Minister over there.

"...or into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of the Province, or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof...."

Now, surely to goodness the request for this inquiry is into the conduct of this public business. That's the very reason for it. And it continues. Why did you neglect to read this?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: That is absolute utter nonsense, and the Attorney-General knows it. Did you read this?

"...or obtaining influence" — this charge is being made in the Legislature — "and support for franchises, charters, or any other rights or privileges, from the Legislature or Government of the Province by any person...."

That's Mr. Kovachich — chapter and verse. That's why we're calling for a public inquiry.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to preface my remarks today by quoting from a great Canadian parliamentarian, the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker. He was speaking in 1949, well before he took office, well before he achieved the eminence of which he now has and, I think, justly deserves. He said on October 27, 1949, in Toronto:

"If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them, the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities."

— whether they be small people, Mr. Speaker, if I can depart from the text of Mr. Diefenbaker — small egg producers living in Duncan — or whether it be others who find themselves against the majority that we see here. But back to my text:

"It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the cabinet of the rights of people.

"It should supervise expenditures and prevent overexpenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse.

"It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates, and moulds public opinion by voice and vote.

"It must scrutinize every act of government and, in doing so, prevents the shortcut through democratic procedures that governments like to make.

"The absence of a strong opposition means a one-party state, and a one-party state means an all-powerful cabinet."

That, I think, is a correct, accurate description of the role of the opposition. I feel that in this instance we are protecting the good name of little people — the people on the egg board, not major producers, but the people who had the courage to go out and swear affidavits as to what they felt was true, even though it meant going against the opinion of the cabinet and the Premier of the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman we have been told that the issue here is a question of good memory, and that no purpose would be served by going to an inquiry, where it would simply be a question of memory, memory, memory. I quote on page 510 of Hansard of this year the effort I made when the first Brunsdon affidavit was public, when I asked the Premier whether he stood by his statement to the House.

"MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the light of a statement sworn by affidavit by W.H.L. Brunsdon, and contained in this morning's paper, may I ask the Premier whether he stands by his statement to the House today?"

Hon. David Barrett, after some intervention from the Speaker of the House.... I will read it if you wish, but otherwise I will go down to the reply.

"HON. MR. BARRETT: I wish to answer the question. The Member refers to an affidavit of which I do not have a copy. But I read the copy in this morning's paper, and after every section in the affidavit, it claims to have said that such and such was said, or words to that effect. Now, I cannot be responsible for what someone's opinion is of what was said or words to that effect.

"I have conversations with many people. But I recall distinctly in this issue, which is a very emotional one, that I made no order, or did not order any solution."

He remembered at that time. He distinctly remembered at that time, and Brunsdon distinctly remembered. Memory lapses came from the Minister

[ Page 936 ]

of Agriculture and others. But to suggest that we're in some problem here because of memory failures is, I think, incorrect.

The issue is not simply one of a good memory, and perhaps before....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Straight politics. You've been on the air already telling what you're going to do today. We know — Act III....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's a lot of noise, and I'd like to comment on a few remarks made earlier by the Premier, and made by him just now.

Mr. Chairman, I take this whole debate as one of great seriousness. I am willing to stake my seat on its outcome. I have said publicly that if Brunsdon's affidavit is substantially incorrect and shown to be so by an independent inquiry, I resign my seat. I take it seriously...

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...a lot more seriously than you do, ma'am. I take it seriously for this reason: the issue of truth in government is something which cannot be concealed either here or in the United States or elsewhere where the problem occurs.

I regard this as an extremely important issue. I regard this as something which goes to the very heart of what we're trying to do for the people of British Columbia.

It really hurts, Mr. Chairman, to make statements in this House which I know to be contrary to the rules. It really hurts a man to do that. I say this to you to indicate to you that this is something that I regard as extremely important, to reiterate that the issue does not go away. I deny completely the suggestion put forward this morning that this is something which is simply a cheap, political trick. If it's a cheap, political trick, I don't stake my reputation and my seat on it — something which, I would suggest, should be noted.

It was stated earlier this morning, Mr. Chairman, that this would likely reoccur some other time in the tenure of the Premier's time in office. Well, I would suggest to him that we are not dealing with something which occurs frequently. I would suggest to him that this is a first time, as I understand it, that this has ever occurred in British Columbia's parliamentary history. I would suggest to him that it occurs rarely in other jurisdictions, and offhand I know of none where a situation like this has arisen. It is not something that can be pooh-poohed, cheapened, indeed, by comments such as we've heard earlier today and the catcalls we've had from the backbench. It's an issue that is clear and simple; it is the issue of truth in government.

It's fine to make speeches as the Attorney-General made that, "Let's get back to business; we want to get on with running the province." Sure, those speeches are made here and they're made elsewhere. They're made, of course, mostly in the United States by Richard Nixon, who would also like to ignore a question of truth in government.

The issue here that we have is similar in this respect: it's similar in the question of honesty and integrity of government. Now let's get to the issue of Kovachich. There were questions raised in the affidavit, and I know you'll tell me I'm out of order if I again read the sections of that affidavit, Mr. Chairman.

But I'd like to quote from Mr. Kovachich himself, quotes which to the best of my knowledge — and I have been sitting here through a good part of this debate — quotes which have riot yet been read into the record. I'm quoting The Province newspaper of February 21, the very first story that came out before the affidavits came out, before anything of that nature came forward to us, before indeed I asked any questions — days before I asked any questions of the Premier in the Legislature on this issue.

I quote from the article; it's page 15, The Province:

"When contacted Wednesday Kovachich was asked if Barrett had arranged the out-of-court settlement. He replied, 'Yes, that's right.' "

When asked whether the Premier had arranged the out-of-court settlement, the man in question, who benefited to the tune of $13,800, said, "Yes, that's right." The Premier arranged it.

Now Kovachich denied that he had asked his MLA for any preferential treatment regarding his fight with the egg board:

"They had promised us support; and when they got elected, I got in touch with Alf and told him, 'You had better start living up to your promises.' "

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, Alf, tell us about that, Alf. Tell us about those promises, Alf.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What promises were made? What consideration was given for those promises?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Liberals never keep their promises.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What promises, he asks. Well, that is the question I'm asking, the question that the people of the province are asking. What promises were made? What consideration was given for those promises? We know there's been a $13,800 consideration given to Kovachich. We know he's had

[ Page 937 ]

his assessments reduced by that amount, even though, as my hon. friend from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) pointed out so well, he has substantially increased his production over the years since he got in business.

Now why is it that Kovachich himself admits that the Premier was the one who arranged the reduction, and why is it that he says — and I'll quote him exactly: "I got in touch with Alf and told him, 'Look, you had better start living up to your promises'"? That's why that meeting took place on October 26 of that year during the mini-session that we had that fall, very soon after the government took office.

Well, the Kovachich affair is central to the issue of truth. Kovachich himself, speaking not on affidavit, denies the Premier's statement. He, the man who benefits to the tune of $13,800, knows where he got that benefit from — from the Premier and his friend Alf.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We can bring Kovachich before an independent inquiry and settle this matter once and for all, Mr. Member for Shuswap, if you'd like to instruct the Premier to do so, as you've instructed him previously on other things.

We have the question of other producers. I mentioned this yesterday, and my hon. friend from North Vancouver mentioned it again earlier this morning: why should other producers, other members of the Egg Marketing Board, be forced to pay the amount of money that Kovachich did not pay to the board? Why should they be forced?

That was raised by the Hon. Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). He said, "What happens if a member of the Egg Marketing Board decides he doesn't want to pay, and goes to court?" For 18 months he's been hearing of meetings of the Egg Marketing Board and meetings of the producers. "I'm sorry we can't tell you about Kovachich; that's a political affair."

What happens if they're so unhappy with that that they now say: "Well, let's not pay into the marketing board; let's leave our funds in trust or outside it"? What happens if there is then a court case on the validity or otherwise of the marketing board?

I'm not a lawyer, despite claims of others in this House. I happen to have a law degree, and I leave questions of law to my hon. friend from West Vancouver and my friend from Point Grey. The issue, though, is pretty clear: has the government, by political interference, done the very thing which the Minister of Agriculture constantly denied they intended to do and, indeed, constantly suggested that they had to guard themselves doing — that is, weakening the board itself?

The issue of this question of payment by other producers is of interest because, of course, only 89 per cent of producers voted to join the scheme. The other 11 per cent preferred private dealing, and they presumably will take advantage of this opportunity provided by the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture to not pay their levies, in the same manner that Kovachich did not pay his levy in the hopes that perhaps if they have a good friend by the name of Alf, they can somehow get the same consideration.

It's a pretty important issue. The issue has come up and been debated, and it's only being raised because the government has raised it so often, Mr. Chairman: the government has consistently said that the Garrish report and other information indicates that there should be changes to the Egg Marketing Board. Yet they have consistently not made those changes, despite the fact the Garrish report is just as many months old as are the affidavits.

They have consistently not made the changes during the sessions of this Legislature or indeed by order-in-council outside of this Legislature. To suggest that the meeting took place on October 26, 1972, for the purpose of considering changes to the Egg Marketing Board strains our credulity, Mr. Chairman, because they've done nothing since then to make the changes that the Garrish report talked about or all those changes that they — I include all Members that spoke on this on the government side — that they thought are so pressing and necessary. No changes in 18 months.

That meeting back on October 26 was clearly for some other purpose. Until I got ruled out of order yesterday when I got to, I believe, paragraph 12, I didn't mention anything but the Kovachich case when I read out that affidavit. That was the true reason for the meeting; that was the true reason for that calling into the office of the Premier of the members of the Egg Marketing Board.

Why? Well, according to Sy Kovachich himself, it was so the Premier himself could get Kovachich's case straightened out to his satisfaction, and his good friend Alf was going to produce the goods on that.

So why has the egg board not been altered? If we are to believe any of the government's arguments, they're going to have to give an explanation for that.

We then go into the question: did the Premier promise and did he keep that promise to deny every word of that meeting inside that office if anybody else spoke about it? Apparently he kept that promise, and apparently that's why we're in the mess we're in now.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a word or two about some of the defences, if you can call them that, that have been put forward by cabinet Ministers. The most sensible one was the Minister of Agriculture, who pleaded amnesia. He couldn't remember what

[ Page 938 ]

happened. He admitted the egg board people probably had better memories of what happened than he had. He suggested that even the Premier might have a better memory. But he, poor fellow, suffers from amnesia and couldn't remember a thing.

His memory improved, but he was very careful never to get out on a limb and support the Premier in his statements that the Premier made in this House. And a search of the record will show that. He's even been away through all these days of the Premier's estimates when they knew, he knew and the Premier knew that this subject had to recur.

There's the argument put forward by the Hon. Attorney-General, the John Mitchell–style arguments, but he made a mistake that John Mitchell didn't make. Oh, I shouldn't say that; I should say that John Mitchell made a mistake that our good Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia didn't make. He got up and he made a great defence, he thought. He flailed away at the opposition. But then he said that he hadn't read the affidavits carefully.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I said I hadn't read them in the sense — and I mean this — in the sense of getting them from the Clerk's office — the original affidavits. I've read them over coffee at the breakfast table subject to interruptions which happen at a breakfast table. I've listened to them ad nauseum being recited in this House. And I know them as well as anybody.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's interesting because now we have the Attorney-General.... And I appreciate the correction of my understanding of what he said. I had thought that he was leaving himself a little opening about as large as a barn door to escape if anything went wrong on this, to say he made the mistake because he hadn't read them carefully.

But no, he has read them carefully and, of course, if the issue blows up, he, as Attorney-General, the chief law office to the Crown, will have to take some responsibility as well — not like our friend the Minister of Agriculture, who won't have to because of his inability to remember; not like the Minister of Highways, who talked on a totally separate subject entirely; not perhaps like the Minister of Labour, who again did not state that he thought that the Premier had been accurate. He just talked on yet another subject of what would happen to him in a hypothetical case.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) got up and made some statements about the Public Inquiries Act. They've been denied by lawyers on this side, but there's a pretty easy way to find out whether or not that Act would be applicable and that is to try using it.

Why not? The Ministers indeed have not supported the Premier, and it's been intriguing to watch, for us on this side of the House. They suspect something might happen and if anything happens — for instance, what happens if an egg producer sues the board, or vice versa over non-payment? Won't the whole Kovachich case come into court under those circumstances? Will it, or won't it?

Perhaps it will, and perhaps under those circumstances once again the accuracy and veracity of the Premier will be called into question. But all those Ministers who have spoken in this debate, they've got their bolt holes, they've got their escape routes, except the Attorney-General, and I admire his courage today as the only Minister who is willing to tie himself to the truth or otherwise of the Premier's statements.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He still has doubts.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He said he has doubts? Oh! Just a minute now, has he still got doubts, or has he really unequivocally supported the position of the Premier...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not even the Minister of Agriculture has done that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Case dismissed! (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, there's another issue as well, Mr. Chairman, and it's one which I think should be commented upon at this time. We know full well, all of us here I'm sure, at least all of us in the opposition, that political parties can make mistakes because individuals within them make mistakes. Our party can admit this. I'm sure the Social Credit and the memory of the Sommers case can admit that Members of their party also made mistakes. The Conservatives are probably in the same position. But the NDP has always adopted a somewhat superior attitude. Other parties make mistakes but their people are somewhat better.

One man supports that statement. What happens, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the Members of the NDP, what happens to the credibility of a party when their members, in a situation such as this, go ahead and support one of their number in refusing an investigation which would or could clear his name?

[ Page 939 ]

What happens to the credibility of the NDP? What about the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) whose husband was such a fine outstanding politician in that party? I'm sure I admire him as much as anybody else in this House.

Does it not leave a funny taste that the party, which has set itself up because of people like that, does it not leave a funny taste that they don't take steps to clear their names? Why is that? It's an interesting question.

I've sat on the backbench of a government, and I've seen Ministers worked over by Members of the opposition, and I remember the caucus meetings afterwards and saying,"Well, what is the situation here?" Why is it now with a party which has always attempted to put principle very highly — and I admire their members for that who've always struggled often against great odds to put forward views which they held and held sincerely — why is it that now in power this corruption of power talked about by Lord Acton seems to have set in?

How about the Members who are ministers of the cloth? How do they enjoy — and one of them at least comes into this chamber frequently in clerical garb — how does he enjoy the prospect of going back to his riding and saying: "Yes, I know that a simple inquiry could have cleared the name of the Premier, but we decided not to take it." Knowing full well that the person there speaking to him in his riding will draw the conclusion "They didn't take it because they didn't want to know the results of it."

Mr. Chairman, we can't carry on forever arguing the issue of whether or not the Premier has or has not told the truth in this case; that's obvious. Ultimately the debate must come to an end. But what will not come to an end is this. We have a situation where the opportunity has been presented to the Minister, the Premier of the Province, and the Minister of Agriculture and the Attorney-General to clear their names and the reputation of their party.

They can do that by the simple expedient of a public inquiry, and we have tried, tried, tried to get a public inquiry ever since February 24 when I first spoke on this. We've tried for a public inquiry to find out, to take this matter out of politics. I find it extremely distasteful that I'm placed in this position that I am today, and have been yesterday and the day before, and the day after that. I find it distasteful.

We have tried time after time for a public inquiry because that's the way we think we can get this matter resolved in the most expeditious fashion without the hurly-burly of political debate.

To accuse us of trying to use this for political purposes is a thoroughly unfair charge. We have consistently, perhaps 20 times in this House, called for that public inquiry. We initiated the concept, and we're delighted that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) today came out so forcibly in favour of our views.

We've tried and tried and tried, because this is not simply a case of two minor egg producers tucked away somewhere making affidavits which may or may not be true. This is a case where the opposition, representing the majority of the people in this province who voted in the last provincial election, and understanding the duties put upon them by their role as opposition Members — which I outlined with my quote from John Diefenbaker — it is us demanding the inquiry. It is the people of British Columbia demanding an inquiry.

We think an inquiry is necessary because whatever our political persuasion, he is our Premier, Mr. Chairman, and our Premier's word should not be cast in the light of doubt that it is.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I just can't understand the NDP backbenchers and their attitude to this, because I believe they are destroying the credibility of their party by their acquiescence to the actions of the cabinet, by their determination to follow the cabinet come hell or high water on this issue and not to allow a public inquiry.

You backbenchers had better think about this because it's not just a question of your own seats. I'm sure you can get beyond your own personal views on this. But what does it do to your party and its credibility and the respect that all of us in this Legislature and outside have for the Websters and the Winches of years gone by?

MR. FRASER: They're all one-turn guys. One turn, one turn; that's all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a situation which I think they should ponder on and give them the opportunity of expressing displeasure at the actions of their cabinet, and in particular their Premier, who in my mind will destroy their party just as surely as can be with his actions.

I would like to move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, so that all Members can express their disapproval of the action being taken without necessarily defeating the Premier. I move that the salary of the Hon. Premier as provided in vote 2 be reduced by $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's an amendment moved to vote 2.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, earlier today we asked the Premier to call an independent inquiry to clear the air so that this House could get down to its business. He's chosen not to take this action. For this reason we must support this motion and the Social Credit Party will support this amendment to this motion.

[ Page 940 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I heard a repetition of allegations, interpretations, opinions, with the denial that there's any political motivation by that Member. Mr. Chairman, I simply don't believe that statement that there is no political motivation. That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to my opinion, and I certainly intend to repeat; that's the way I feel.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Member, the whole matter has been a contrived, political device. It has been staged. It has been sent outside to the newspapers and to the media step by step. All this time, going on unbeknownst behind his own back, his own party that two days ago shook hands with him in the House, were knifing him in the back at the same time.

Mr. Chairman, what we're really seeing is a political device to save his own skin not based on any rational argument in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's Brutus.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's Cassius, not Brutus. There's Brutus.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's rather a pathetic thing, that a Premier of the Province has no better defence for his own actions, no firmer course of action to deal with specific charges laid not by Members of this House but by citizens of British Columbia, than to accuse the leader of the Liberal Party of cheap, political motivation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, push for recess.

MR. McGEER: The Premier has completely lost his senses, Mr. Chairman. He is under pressure. We acknowledge that, but we have given every opportunity to the Premier to relieve that pressure by following a course of action that he himself has set out for other Members of this House, similarly charged.

The charge — and we can phrase this in any number of different ways — let me put it this way: failing to level with the House and the public of British Columbia. That's what the charge is. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is one citizen of British Columbia who believes in his heart that the Premier is levelling with the House or the people of British Columbia, not one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Want to bet?

MR. McGEER: The Premier, Mr. Chairman, stands by himself.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I know that the New Democratic Party will, to a man, follow the dictates of that famous British parliamentarian, Benjamin Disraeli, who said, "Damn your principles and stick by your party."

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what Gordon Gibson said last night.

MR. McGEER: I suspect there will be 37 of them this afternoon if the Minister of Agriculture comes in for the vote.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you stick by your party?

MR. McGEER: I certainly stick by my leader, and I repeat, he is the only leader in British Columbia today — not the Premier. The Premier stands by himself, perhaps supported by others for their own survival, but the Premier's defence — political motivation, red herrings. Mr. Premier, answer the charges against you. Answer them one by one.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has a lean and hungry look.

MR. McGEER: They're there in the affidavits. What, Mr. Chairman, does the Premier think people like myself and the leader of the Liberal party, and the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed the backbenchers, have been sent to this House to do? Does he think we're lacking in integrity? Does he suspect that our course of action should be to ignore the charges that these men have laid in sworn affidavits?

Mr. Chairman, let me ask another question: What would the Premier have done if he were the Leader of the Opposition? I can tell you the kind of flaming speeches he would have made. He got thrown out of this House for something that wasn't a tiny bit as important as this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn your back on a widow?

MR. McGEER: There is no issue which transcends integrity in government — none! The Premier does not understand that, and if the other Members of his party do understand it, they've given no indication of that. Yes, there's a non-confidence motion in the Premier. There has to be a non-confidence motion in the Premier. On this issue, Mr. Chairman, he doesn't have the confidence of anybody in British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Where are the other Ministers of the Crown — standing up to support the Premier's

[ Page 941 ]

word? Where's the Minister of Agriculture? Mr. Chairman, where was the Premier when the Minister of Agriculture was under fire? He was at ICBC getting his picture in the paper. I'm not surprised that the Minister of Agriculture isn't in here defending the Premier. The Minister of Agriculture did have amnesia. Some say he was drinking milk of amnesia. (Laughter.) But, Mr. Chairman, the Premier hasn't really pleaded amnesia for that meeting. He merely detracts from the specific questions that were asked in that affidavit. I ask once more, did the Premier say to Mr. Brunsdon, and the other Members of the Egg Marketing Board: "If you discuss this matter outside my office, I will deny every word of it"? Yes or no, did the Premier say that to Mr. Brunsdon?

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, once again we're speaking about integrity. We're speaking about respect for this House. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read from today's issue of the Vancouver Province, a statement attributed by the reporter to the Hon. leader of the Liberal party (Mr. D.A. Anderson). It says:

"Anderson said he did not know what tactics the Liberals would adopt today to try to continue to press the point. He said he does not much mind being ejected from the House for an afternoon at a time. 'If it was in Ottawa or most places, if I thought I was really chipping away at the traditions of British parliamentary system, I would then feel very badly about getting thrown out — I would feel very guilty. But here in British Columbia, where I have no real respect for the Speaker or for the way the House operates, it doesn't seem to matter.'

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you say that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read on, read on! Read it all.

HON. MR. LEA: I read the part of the Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: He admits saying it.

HON. MR. LEA: Do you admit saying it, Mr. Member?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it all!

HON. MR. LEA: I think what we've seen, Mr. Chairman, since the election in August of 1972, is a group of people in the opposition parties who do not really believe in the British parliamentary system. They will not accept that we won that election.

Now to show another inconsistency, Mr. Chairman. On the one hand, we have Members of the Liberal Party standing up in this House saying that they would like to have integrity, within the House and without, by Members. They say that it was not nice — or it wouldn't be nice — and they would never do, or even think of doing, putting political pressure on civil servants. "That is not done by anyone," they say. But, Mr. Chairman, with the leader of the Liberal Party, the Hon. Second Member for Victoria, denying to this House that at a public meeting he was asked: "If you were Premier, what would you do with the civil service?" And he replied,"I would politicize that civil service to carry out the wishes of the government that I was in charge of." Yes or no, Mr. Chairman, did he say that?

Now, we can't on the one hand have people in this House saying, "I'm against that," and in public saying that they would take an exactly opposite course. Now, did he say it, did he mean to say it, or did he say something else and similar words to that effect? The fact of the matter is — and I was there — and I understood him to say that. Did he think he said that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you sure?

MR. LEWIS: Can't remember?

HON. MR. LEA: Now, Mr. Chairman, I want that Member to say in this House whether he said that, and let's see how good his memory is, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he say it or didn't he? Can't remember.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I got a sinking feeling in my stomach as I was listening to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) particularly, and the Premier to some extent. I recalled the speech I heard some weeks ago from the President of the United States who kept insisting,"Let's get on with the business of building America." We don't need Richard Nixon–type politics in this province, and I felt that same kind of phrase coming from those Ministers as they were attempting to defend an indefensible policy by this government.

I rise at this moment to plead once more for the Premier to take the advice, the solid advice, of the Leader of the Official Opposition to get on with the business of government, and call a public inquiry so that we may do just that. That's all there is to it. The Leader of the Official Opposition made a sound, sensible suggestion, and I'd suggest, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier should accept that suggestion in good faith.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) attempted to cloud the issue even more by relating it to his intervention in certain kinds of labour disputes, but

[ Page 942 ]

I'd just like to ask: In any intervention which you've made, through you, Mr. Chairman, has anybody ever benefited financially with a direct financial benefit from that kind of intervention — money, cash, changing hands? I hope not. Any Minister who attempts to conciliate in this province on an open and above-board basis will have no objection from the official opposition or from any Member of the opposition.

The Premier says that he's never shirked discussions on salaries and he's never shirked discussions on responsibilities of the MLAs — all those big issues. But the Premier is shirking discussion when we finally get an issue that's of importance to every person in British Columbia. This has gone far enough, Mr. Chairman; it's time that that public inquiry was called, and it should be called before this House rises today.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the other head man.

MR. McCLELLAND: We must be very clear in what has happened in this province. The first Minister of this province has been accused in this chamber of lying — a Minister of the Crown — and also outside the chamber he's been accused of lying. A Minister of the Crown, inside and outside of this chamber, has been accused of lying.

There have been charges inside and outside of this House of influence peddling. There have been threats; there has been political interference.

You can't slide out from under those kinds of charges. They must be brought before the public. If they're not, you will destroy the last vestige of confidence left in your office, through you, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier claims to love his province. I suggest he show the people that he does. Show some respect for British Columbia by allowing this matter to be called forward to the kind of public attention that it deserves.

If the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) of this province cannot understand that the most important public business at this time is the integrity and honesty of the Premier's office, then I find nothing but pity for that Attorney-General.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is having his position cut out from under him by other Members of his cabinet. I wonder if the Premier is considering calling for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture stood in this House and gave a very vigorous and stirring defence of the concept of marketing boards in the province. Yet we've seen one after another of the Members of his backbench and the Members of his cabinet cut the legs out from under the Minister of Agriculture by condemning his stand in support of marketing boards in British Columbia — condemning the stand of the Minister of Agriculture.

That's another reason, and perhaps that's the reason the Minister of Agriculture hasn't been able to show up in the House today. And that's another reason why it's vitally necessary, Mr. Chairman, that a public inquiry be held, and be held quickly.

All we ask as Members of the official opposition is that your values be straightened out. If, through you Mr. Chairman, the Premier damages the high office he holds, he destroys something precious in this province. We plead with you not to let it happen. Don't let false pride stand in the way of truth. Please accept the suggestion made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Bennett). Hold an inquiry, and we will get down to other business in this House — but hold it now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I shan't be very long. We've come to this sorry situation, Mr. Chairman, where we have charges of untruthfulness and charges of political interference by the Premier's office, and all the defence that we have offered for the Premier is silence on the part of most of his cabinet, and a smokescreen of half-truths from Ministers such as the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea).

He quoted from The Province today attempting to attack the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), and only read part of the quote. I'd like to read, Mr. Chairman, into the record the part that the Hon. Minister neglected to include: "I feel I'm upholding real parliamentary traditions, not chipping away at them, even though I'm being thrown out."

I wonder why the Minister of Highways, when defending the Premier, felt compelled to omit those words. Is your defence of the Premier so weak that you have to rely upon half-truths, Mr. Minister? I think that the answer to that must be yes.

I'm only going to say this: why does the Premier refuse to face the citizens who have accused him? He does not deny the sworn statements in Mr. Unger's affidavit. He doesn't deny the sworn statements in the affidavits tabled in this House on behalf of members of the Broiler Marketing Board — Mr. McAninch and Mr. Stafford. Why is he afraid, before a commissioner that he and his cabinet can appoint, to face these people and clarify this issue?

The issue is very simple. Either he is right, or they are right. Isn't it time, Mr. Chairman, that we had right done in British Columbia?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): There have been many statements about respect for the House, respect for the parliamentary system and respect for honesty, and I certainly feel that most Members of this House acknowledge and try to follow and behave according to that respect.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to separate

[ Page 943 ]

two issues. My personal behaviour in taking certain actions, which I have taken in regard to political parties in this province, has nothing whatever to do with the issue that we're debating in the Premier's estimates. I want that clearly understood on the record.

I just hope, Mr. Chairman, that you won't get overzealous and try to rule me out of order, because the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) was given very considerable rein to raise issues related to this subject. I would like to be given the same opportunity on this side of the House to answer these charges.

The fact is that discussions and meetings did take place, but the motivation and the initiation of any discussions preceded and had nothing to do with the issue of the Premier's present situation.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm talking for myself, Mr. Minister, and nobody else.

I just started my comments by saying that I have a great respect for honesty. I intend to maintain that respect and act upon it. When the Minister of Highways made certain statements yesterday I chose to set the record straight as I saw it by stating exactly what happened.

Therefore I want it clearly understood — and I'll certainly take any other steps that anyone asks of me — that I'm not participating in this debate on the Premier's situation because of any other political involvement that I have had in this whole question of discussions with other MLAs on the opposition side of this House.

I was unaware of this whole chicken-and-egg issue until it was brought up in this House. I'm on record as having made it plain that I kept fairly quiet in the debate, because I was not fully acquainted with the issue.

I have, however, listened to both sides of the argument, and I've judged this issue on what I've heard. It is not related to my personal involvement in any way, as I see it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're in bad company.

MR. WALLACE: Now whether you consider I'm keeping bad company is your opinion, Mr. Member, and don't talk about Arnold Hean, please. Let's get that straight on the record. I don't even know what his first name is, but this is just dragging in another red herring. He was not involved in any of the meetings that have been referred to. Once in my life I have met the said gentleman, at his request, on the same day that he chose to meet with each leader of each opposition party.

HON. MR. BARRETT: McClelland says he wasn't invited either. He says you aren't being truthful. He says he wasn't involved.

MR. WALLACE: He wasn't involved? The meetings or the discussions that the Minister of Highways mentioned yesterday, did not involve Arnold Hean.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, McClelland.

MR. WALLACE: No, I am not responsible for what other Members say. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Et tu, Brute.

MR. WALLACE: No, I want to stick to the facts, and the facts are that at some insistence that said gentleman, Mr. Hean, on more than one occasion asked to meet with me, and I finally agreed that if he wanted to meet with me, he could do so, and he came and talked with me, as I recall, last Friday morning. I could be wrong on the day, but it was either Thursday or Friday.

This had nothing whatever to do with the other discussions which I was interested in continuing with other Members of this House. In fact he came and presented to me certain ideas of his own.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

So that I just want it made very clear that I am trying to remain objective on the issue which is being debated on the Premier's vote, and in my situation it is not related to these other meetings or conversations, which I openly admit have taken place and I have been a part of it. I am stating that openly here in this House as I did after the Minister raised the matter yesterday.

We've had, in fact, "damn your principles and stick to the party." There may be many Conservatives in this province who would like to see me hang from the highest lamppost, but in point of fact, my entry into these discussions was clearly based on the fact that I was trying to put B.C. first and party second.

The whole amount of public expression of opinion brought to me, written to me and sent to me, convinces me that the great majority of people in this province believe that there should be some effort to unite the opposition parties and I am interested in responding to the stated feelings and strong opinions of many, many people.

If I was so concerned that party came first, perhaps things would be different. But this is the basis on which I acted. The Minister of Highways raised the matter. I appreciate the tolerance of the Chair in allowing me to respond and I hope this satisfies the Minister as to where I sit and what I've

[ Page 944 ]

done and why I've done it.

As to the matter of the Premier's situation, first of all with respect I would have to disagree with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). He put forward an analogy which I don't really think was valid, because I agree with the Minister of Labour that in labour disputes where every other effort has failed — and I think that was the phrase he used — that it is indeed an important role of the Minister of Labour to intervene. I'm as perhaps as constantly a supporter of that suggestion and it is on the record that I often ask him in this House: at what point will he intervene in such and such a strike? And I think that's a very legitimate function of the Minister, which admittedly requires a great deal of discretion so that any intervention is not premature.

But I say with the greatest of respect to that Minister, and I do respect the Minister of Labour greatly, we're talking about a slightly different situation, in fact not slightly different, considerably different.

This was not a labour dispute but a problem, the details of which the House has had innumerable times in the last 10 days. I don't feel that there was anything of the same justification for the Premier on this occasion as there would be for the Minister of Labour in the kind of labour dispute situation which he outlined.

I also feel that because of our respect for our parliamentary system, and that the fact that this most serious of accusations has been made against the Premier...and I repeat at this point in time, I don't know and I haven't made up my mind who is right and who is wrong, but I know that the very serious accusation has been made.

I know that I can't personally think of anything that would disturb me more in my political career if somebody in the broad light of day in this chamber stood up and said that I had lied.

For that reason, the severity and the seriousness of the situation is something which distresses me if it is to be left without some attempt at clarification.

The Premier has quite rightly stated his respect for the office of the Premier. Again, I would say, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, that is really what is at issue here even more than your own personal integrity. There is the issue of the office of Premier having been accused of the most serious accusation that can be leveled.

Again, I'm not prepared to say one way or the other as to your interpretation of the motives behind this. I'm simply saying that the most serious accusation has been leveled against you over a very considerable period of time and the upholding of the office of the Premier is very much the issue.

I would also have to say that in my opinion the manner in which the Minister of Labour dismissed or assumed what our attitude or the attitude of the opposition would be to the effectiveness of a judicial inquiry was rather superficial. I happen to think that a judicial inquiry would not lead me to conclude that Deputies and other Members of the civil service would simply be "whipped into line," as the Minister said.

Now again, I am speaking for myself. If he chooses or has evidence to suggest that that is what other people do or would do, that's another issue. I just want my position in this debate very clearly and unmistakably understood — that I in my mind am not convicting the Premier of having lied. I am simply unsettled in my own mind as to why there is this conflict of evidence between what certain citizens have said were the facts, and certain statements which the Premier has made to contradict these facts.

I just want it clearly understood for myself that if a judicial inquiry were held, and if the Premier's name were cleared completely, I certainly will never stand up here or anywhere else and say: "Oh, of course they whipped the civil servants into line."

I happen to know some of the civil servants who would be involved in such evidence under oath, and I say, without any reservation whatever, that I would know that these people would tell the truth.

So let there be no mistake in anybody's mind about what my attitude would be to the findings of a judicial inquiry, and there has been some suggestion made in the House today that one of the reasons it should not be held is that the opposition would twist the results of the inquiry in whichever direction suited them.

I'll just make it plain again. If there is to be such an inquiry, I personally would, and I'm sure my colleague from Saanich (Mr. Curtis) would, accept unequivocally whatever findings were made by such an inquiry. Apart from the fact that I would do this, I think it's a little unfortunate — and I don't know that even the Minister realized what kind of implication he was making towards the civil servants concerned when he made the statement he did — I think it was an unfortunate implication that civil servants can be coerced by their Minister to say or not say whatever suited the Minister's future.

I agree that this is a sorry debate, and it's gone on and on. I'm sure if we could all go back a little way — but we cannot — the matter could have avoided reaching this point where people have taken up rigid positions. I hope we have reached the point at least where we can agree to disagree and proceed with more important matters in the House.

Nevertheless, as I said the other day, I do feel that if I were in the Premier's shoes I would feel obligated, even although I knew I was innocent, to put the matter before the kind of objective, judicial inquiry which would hear the evidence from both sides and come to a conclusion which, I again repeat, I would accept without question and likely without even

[ Page 945 ]

comment because of the respect I have for the kind of people who would conduct the inquiry and because I believe civil servants and anybody else on oath would tell the truth.

I make no secret of the fact — and the Premier knows this well — that I have a great deal of admiration for many of the things the Premier of this province has done, both in opposition and since he came to power. We have commented on this publicly. My party has not always been happy that I have supported some of his legislation, but nevertheless that's the way I see politics. People have the right to come to their own conclusions. We're all here for a short time anyway; some of us shorter than others, possibly.

But I do respect the Premier and I feel this is a very sorry day for him, for the office of Premier and for this House. I still feel it is the eleventh hour; I still feel a judicial inquiry would provide a most reasonable and fair and satisfying solution to the problem not only for all of us in this House but for every c citizen in British Columbia.

So if the Premier will reconsider at the eleventh hour — and I plead with him to do so; I plead with the Premier to reconsider — I would not only be very happy but would not be in a position to have to support this motion. But if the point has been reached where adamantly there is to be no inquiry, then it is with some considerable reluctance that I support the motion.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why I've sat through almost all of this is because of some of the experiences mentioned by the previous speaker. We've both been through the same experiences in this House with no other experiences elsewhere. We both have come to different conclusions out of similar experiences. That Member sits with the Conservative Party, and I sit with the NDP, but his foundation in the House came through similar experience as my own in terms of seeing what the House has gone through in the past and comparing it presently to what it has gone through today.

I have sat through almost all of the debate; I've been out only briefly. I think 99.9 per cent of the debate, I've been through it all. Most of it I've dismissed as purely politically motivated or manipulative debate.

In the instance of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) I say, with no obligation on his part, that I consider him to be a friend of mine, which has absolutely no bearing on his opinion or my opinion of this debate today. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, my relationships with the people in this House are not conditioned by political affiliation. I'm sure they feel the same way to me.

Mr. Member, I have said earlier today that I said exactly what I recall from that particular meeting. I have said it openly and honestly. I frankly and candidly believe that in some Members' minds the motivation in this debate has not been anything more than political. But I do not ascribe those motives to you, and I'm entitled to my opinion.

Mr. Member, I've made the decision to say what I've said, to stand by what I've said. As I said earlier, it is the honour of this House, one way or the other, for each Member to decide for himself. I've acted in good conscience. I've placed my position out clearly, and I intend to stand by that position. Mr. Member, I do so with a very, very clear conscience not only of the history of this House but of the role I play in this House and the role I have been asked to play not only by my party but by the people of this province.

Your debate is at the level that brings forth this response from me. I must say that it has not always been that kind of level of debate in this House. It may even motivate some Members to cast reflections on this House as it has gone through its hysterical and historical development. But, nonetheless, that is my position, and it remains. I take my position in all clear and good conscience.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, earlier this morning I was raising the position as to whether or not this step which was taken by the Premier and by the Egg Marketing Board and by Mr. Kovachich was to be considered a precedent. Mr. Brunsdon says in his affidavit, which was sworn February 24, 1974, paragraph 7 and paragraph 8:

"That the board then and there asked Mr. Barrett if his order was a precedent that would apply to other B.C. egg producers.

"That Mr. Barrett then and there informed me in the following words that: 'No, just this one instance. If any other producers get out of line step on them,' or similar words to the same effect."

I would ask the Hon. Premier if he is aware of other producers who are out of line and the board is not taking action against them to collect levies that are made against them. We have to have one law in this province and one scale of justice; the same for Mr. Kovachich and the same for other producers.

Other producers are raising the position that there was influence and are raising the position that Mr. Kovachich received preferential treatment.

I've just been handed a statement which apparently emanated from radio CJCI, Prince George. Apparently they have taped a statement from Mr. Kovachich saying he is an NDP member and donated $200 to the 1972 provincial campaign and $100 to the NDP federal party. Apparently this is now public information. This is the very reason, Mr. Premier, that people today who are producers are asking whether or not there is going to be one law in the province

[ Page 946 ]

under the provisions of the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act and the regulations that emanate from that, or whether there's going to be another standard of justice and equity or injustice and inequity depending upon one's point of view.

That is the reason why a full public inquiry is mandatory. I would tend to think if the Premier is not prepared to call a full public inquiry, an impartial one whereby witnesses can be called, whereby they can be cross-examined, which is open to the public, the Premier should be prepared to stand or fall on this issue and go to the people.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond briefly to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

I'd like to state clearly in this House that there has never been any doubt in my mind at any time that the Member for Oak Bay would not be truthful in or out of this House. Never.

I would like to say that when I got up to speak yesterday I had information, I got good information, that meetings had been taking place as I described. I can say that I wasn't sure but I had reasonable information that had convinced me I probably was making the right assumption.

I'll say that because I felt if there was one Member in this House who would never at any time back away from an issue and would state the truth, I thought it was the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I gambled my remarks yesterday on his honesty, and true to form he was honest. So, I'd just like to have that straight.

At no time have I ever assumed that you were not honest, or that the Member attended those meetings with any ulterior motive. He said he spoke for himself personally, and I accept his remarks from himself personally.

I would like to return for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to something I raised earlier today. Again we're talking about integrity by Members within and without this House. I said earlier that within my hearing the Hon. Member of the Liberal Party had said what he would do if he were Premier of this province — that he would politicize the civil service to carry out what he thought was his government's policy if he were Premier. He also said at that same meeting that he would fire senior people, move other senior people aside. He thought no harm in that — to politicize that civil service to carry out his government's policy.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this whole debate has been simply a sham and a farce on the part of that party, the Liberal Party. I believe that what I have said today is true, and if it is true then that ensures that this debate has been absolute hogwash, and I'd like to...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please!

HON. MR. LEA: ...hear that Member get up and deny it in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Members to confine their remarks to the motion before us: that the salary of the Hon. Premier, as provided in vote 2, be reduced by $1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier and the Minister of Highways has just brought out the butter dish and slathered liberal quantities of butter over the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, and it must be uncomfortable for him.

The Premier went to some length to say that he's been replying to the reasonable personalities in this House and in this debate. But, Mr. Chairman, what he's been doing is replying to the soft questions. He hasn't been replying to the tough questions. He hasn't been replying to the tough questions. He hasn't been replying to. the questions from the First and Second Members for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom, Mr. McGeer), the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). He hasn't been replying to those questions because they're tough questions; that's why.

Mr. Chairman, to me government is such a highly complex and important thing that ordinary citizens don't have the time and they don't have the information to keep up with it. Very often even Members of this House don't have the information they need to keep up with all of the aspects and corners of it. So, it's fundamental that citizens and Members have to rely on the word of officers of the Crown. How awful it would be to set a precedent that an officer of the Crown can laugh off and ignore a serious charge of lying. How awful it would be to think that an officer of the Crown could laugh off and ignore a charge of political pay-off.

[Mr. Fraser in the chair.]

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): No way! Oh, come off it! Don't be so ridiculous.

MR. GIBSON: I don't see how Members can agree to the estimates of the Premier while his truthfulness is in question in this House. Yet, he has denied us every means of assessing that, of trying to discover one way or another whether this direct conflict between the truthfulness of the affidavits and the truthfulness of the Premier's words in Hansard, which conflict so directly. Which is true?

There's a statement here by Mr. Kovachich on the...

[ Page 947 ]

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Here we go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Et tu, Brute.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Good for him.

MR. GIBSON: Here's another statement: "They had promised us support, and when they got elected I got in touch with Alf and told him 'Look you'd better start living up to your promises.' "

AN HON. MEMBER: We've heard that one before.

MR. GIBSON: You may have heard it before, Mr. Member, I don't know if it made any impression on you.

Getting back to the point I was making, Mr. Chairman, it's the truthfulness of the Premier that's in question, and he has denied us all means of clearing that question. An inquiry has been denied. A committee has been refused. The calling of witnesses to the bar of the House, in keeping with the suggestion of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) that the matter should be settled within the four corners of this House. That means exists. The calling of witnesses to the bar of the House has been refused, and the Premier has refused to answer questions.

The question that the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has asked time after time: "Did the Premier say at that meeting on October 26, 1972, that if anybody said anything about that meeting he would deny it?" That's the kind of tough question the Premier hasn't been answering, Mr. Chairman.

I don't see how this House can afford to set the precedent and leave the precedent that not just an officer of the Crown, but the Premier of this province can laugh off and ignore a charge of lying. For that reason I intend to support this amendment in voting non-confidence in the Premier.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's nice to see you in the chair. And knowing that I have to meet with you in committee from time to time, you can be certain that my respect for the Chair will reach new heights this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, as this debate goes on it's necessary for us to keep focusing again and again and again on the central issue which is at stake, and to cast aside the irrelevancies that are brought in by some Hon. Members who refuse to accept the challenge that has been placed before them by the affidavits made by these four citizens of British Columbia. Among those people is the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). You do paint things sharply in politics, but you don't take a bucket of paint and throw it up against the wall.

When the Minister of Highways made his feeble effort to challenge the veracity of the leader of the Liberal Party, surely if there is anyone's veracity in British Columbia today that need not be challenged it's that of the leader of the Liberal Party. He gave his version of statements made by the leader of the Liberal Party at a public meeting which were placed on tape. And if any Member in this House wishes to check on those statements for their meaning, they can listen to those tapes.

Furthermore, his statements were made publicly with a Member of the opposition present.

When you make statements, however controversial, in the face of those witnesses, and in the face of that continuing availability of evidence, there can be no question of your veracity and your willingness to put that on the record and to stand by what you said and what you did.

Contrast that, Mr. Chairman, with the performance of the Premier of this province who summons people supposedly independent politically to his office, who according to their affidavits, gives them orders. Who according to the affidavits tells those people that if they say anything to the public, he'll deny every word of it. And then he proceeds to deny every word of it, pleading that it happened 18 months ago.

Yesterday the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) pointed out in the House that there was no general principle involved in the Premier's action, that what took place was for the benefit of one single individual, Mr. Sy Kovachich. On that occasion, there was just one. There was another individual at a later time, Mr. Member, but please stand up and correct me if what I am saying is wrong about that meeting in October, where the affidavit was laid regarding actions that the board was obliged to take with respect to Mr. Sy Kovachich.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) used strong words. He drew analogies to a former sordid incident in this House. I believe he suggested influence peddling. It's in Hansard. It is on the record, and we can check those statements.

[ Page 948 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Liberal garbage!

MR. McGEER: The Minister of Transport says "Liberal garbage." That's echoed by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon on a radio station in Prince George, the information is given that Mr. Sy Kovachich contributed $200 to the New Democratic Party during that provincial election held only two months before he appeared in the Premier's office.

Mr. Chairman, anyone is entitled to contribute to the political party of their choice, but not anyone, Mr. Chairman, is entitled to walk into the Premier's office and get a $13,500 concession!

That order given to the Egg Marketing Board was outside the laws passed in this Legislative Assembly; there's no question of that. And that action taken by the Premier and the cabinet made it impossible for the Egg Marketing Board to function, because if a $13,500 concession could be made to Mr. Sy Kovachich, why couldn't a concession be made to every other egg producer in British Columbia who had a levy assessed against him?

If you were a Member of that Egg Marketing Board, how could you go out and face the public and tell them that you gave a concession to one egg producer but refused to give it to another? How can you tell them that there's one scale of justice in British Columbia when that kind of thing can go on behind closed doors and you have to stand up in public and defend another course of action?

That's what's wrong with what the government did. Yes, the issue is integrity and truth, but the consequences of the issue are also obvious, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to hear some Ministers of the Crown, particularly the Premier, stand up and address themselves to this issue. The evidence is building up against you; it's not disseminating.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's try that again, Doctor — "dissipating."

MR. McGEER: He gave me a better word. May I use it? It's not dissipating; it's building up.

How much longer can the Premier and the cabinet avoid the public of British Columbia through an inquiry? How much longer are we going to have to debate in this House for equal standards to be applied to the Premier's office as to that of every other Member and every citizen of British Columbia? There cannot be one law for Mr. Sy Kovachich and another for the other egg producers. There cannot be one law for the Premier of British Columbia and another law for every other citizen of the province. We must all operate by the same standards.

I ask the Premier once more to answer my direct question. Did he or did he not tell Mr. Brunsdon and the other Members of the Egg Marketing Board: "If you talk about this outside my office, I will deny every word I said"? Will the Premier answer yes or no to that question?

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I had intended to stay out of this for the remainder of the debate. However, there has been one point that's been made repeatedly and not corrected, and I feel that it should be corrected.

First of all, it's quite right that, as stated in the affidavits, there is only one egg producer mentioned, and that is Mr. Sy Kovachich from Prince George. However, it was stated once during the agricultural estimates that there were, in fact, two people in northern B.C. who had had their levies, if you like, or fines reduced as a decision of the Egg Marketing Board. Now, the Premier's involvement, as he has stated, is that he would like to see this particular issue resolved, because it was a matter of dispute between these egg producers in the north — and I use the term "producers," not "producer," because the other producer in question at that time was Mr. Nick Samson, who owns Samson's Poultry in Terrace. His levy was considerably greater than that of Mr. Kovachich. It was $60,000.

The point is that what is alleged to be true about one must also be true of the other. If what is true of one is not true of the other then I doubt if any case can be made for this at all. If the decision of the Egg Marketing Board was the result of their political bias — because it was a decision of the Egg Marketing Board — then they, presumably, were biased in favour of an NDP member in Prince George, Mr. Sy Kovachich. So if the Hon. Members for the Liberal Party are saying that that was the motivation of the Egg Marketing Board — that they were motivated by the fact that they were partial to an NDP member — then I would assume that that must have been their motivation in dealing with Mr. Samson.

However, I happen to know the facts of the case about Mr. Samson. That situation had been brewing long before the election in August of 1972. It was a serious problem and of great concern to the people of Terrace that the sole producer of eggs in the area was seriously threatened with going out of business.

What had happened was this. Suppose that you were a farmer in Terrace and you produced a good-quality egg and the regulations of the province were such that you could not expand your production, even though the demand for your eggs was great. Believe me, it is great. I've read other letters into the record in proof of this.

So you are a farmer — ambitious, desiring to be a real free enterpriser and expand your operations and expand your business. It must have been a tremendous temptation for Mr. Samson to meet the

[ Page 949 ]

demands of the local people for more of his eggs. He apparently yielded to that temptation. He yielded to the temptation of actually producing more eggs, because the people in Terrace wanted more of his eggs.

What a terrible sin! What a terrible crime! I'm sure that the free enterprisers would have a tough time defending that as sin in their dictionary of free enterprise. But the fact was that that's what he was doing. He was simply tempted to expand his production of eggs because of the local demand for those eggs in Terrace. Now, he ran afoul of the regulations of the Egg Marketing Board, and he was caught running afoul of these....

Interjection.

MR. DENT: The regulations set an authorized quota of 200 cases per week that he could produce and then they have a system of levies and fines so that if you go beyond that 200 cases, they can penalize you with a set of sanctions. Every lawyer knows what sanctions are. They applied those sanctions in order to bring Mr. Samson into line.

Now, the fine that was levied was $60,000. Had he paid that $60,000 he would have gone out of business. There would have been no egg producers in Terrace or anywhere in the northwest of the province. The Smithers one went out shortly thereafter.

So the Egg Marketing Board was faced with a decision, obviously. I don't think they were motivated by political reasons. I don't believe for one minute that the Egg Marketing Board was motivated politically. They made the decision. It was a decision made by the Egg Marketing Board, as far as I can see.

The Premier and the Minister, according to their statements, wanted them to negotiate and resolve the problem. They each had their lawyers, and they evidently went to work and came up with a solution according to the information we have been given. Certainly both sides of this dispute agree with that.

The decision made by the Egg Marketing Board was to reduce the fine and come to a settlement. I see nothing wrong with that; that's done very commonly out of court. Where two parties have a dispute and it involves dollars, they may come to a settlement. Certainly if this was a decision made by the elected members of the Egg Marketing Board, then they would naturally have to face their producers in the next election to answer for that. But this was a decision made by the Egg Marketing Board, and I am glad they made it because we can still buy Samson's eggs in town. I buy them. I cook my own eggs for breakfast; I like to buy locally-produced eggs. Many of my friends buy these eggs.

Now had the original fine been levied, there is a good possibility that those eggs would no longer be available in Terrace. So it's a simple thing. I am grateful to the Egg Marketing Board for having made this decision, but I resent the imputation that the Egg Marketing Board was guilty of favouritism in terms of their decision. I can't believe that a responsible group of men in control of the Egg Marketing Board, acting within the laws of this province, could be influenced by anybody to act in a manner contrary....

Interjection.

MR. DENT: I believe these men made a good decision. As far as I am concerned, from the point of view of Terrace, it was a wise one. I don't think the fact that Mr. Kovachich was a member of the New Democratic Party had anything to do with it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He said it did....

MR. DENT: In regard to the comment read into the record by the Hon. Member, I think the reference is quite clear to me. I know Mr. Kovachich a little bit; I have talked to him on a number of occasions. They are not concerned with contravening the law or with getting special favours. What they are concerned about is surviving — that's what they are concerned about. They are having a very tough time surviving in the north country. I'm sure what the Hon. Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) promised them was that he would do everything he could to help them survive, including getting the regulations changed.

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

MR. DENT: You can believe me, the people of Prince George and the people of Terrace are very grateful for the efforts of the Hon. Member for Fort George in trying to get a solution to this problem.

As I said, I don't believe for one minute that there was any attempt at political favouritism. Mr. Samson has never been associated with the NDP. I have no idea how he votes, or whether he is a Conservative or Liberal or Social Credit. I don't know; I have no idea. He has never paid a nickel to our party at any time to my knowledge. As far as I am concerned, he was only concerned about his own survival. I think that was the issue.

HON. MS. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to take my place in this debate on this amendment for several reasons. I think the main issue has been brought back: marketing boards.

Interjection.

HON. MS. YOUNG: It may have been, but the

[ Page 950 ]

Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) pulled it in again and made some comments about the support for the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and for the Premier. I think the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) also put it in very true, realistic perspective.

I have here a book,"The British Columbia Food Industry. A study authorized for the British Columbia Food Council, May-November, 1973, Prepared by F. Rex Werts Limited, Marketing Consultant." The B.C. Food Council is an advisory board to the Minister of Agriculture. It is composed of consumers, of processors, of producers and people in the food industry.

I would like to read a portion of it in the summary relating to marketing boards.

"Thirdly, as in the private sector, the interests of consumers have often not been adequately represented in the development of,marketing controls. When the various marketing boards were formed the main concern was to try to develop a programme for the individual industry which could direct or control production and establish product prices, which at the time promised a better and more stable return to the producers."

We have always accepted that concept and our party always will. Orderly marketing.

"Quite likely there was no thought of developing protective fences around inefficient producers or limiting the future applications of new trends and technologies as they applied to that industry, or of forcing B.C. consumers" — listen to this — "to pay more for B.C. products just because they happened to be grown or raised here."

The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey talked about one kind of law for one kind of producer and another kind for another. I would like to speak to that point too. Two men were penalized for overproducing. They were breaking the regulations of the Egg Marketing Board.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: They were breaking the law.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I have here a clipping from The Vancouver Sun, dated February 27, Abbotsford:

"Some Fraser Valley egg producers are keeping eggs off the market in order to realize higher prices, the B.C. Egg Producers Association general meeting was told here Tuesday."

Keeping eggs off the market to keep the prices up.

"One poultryman claimed the practice was unfair to those producers who met their commitments and sent their eggs to market. 'The one who holds them gets high prices for all his eggs,' he said."

And you know what the Egg Marketing Board said? They didn't know what to do about it; they didn't know what kind of action to take. There was no agreement as to action to take against somebody who was holding their eggs off the market to force the prices up to the consumer. They have no device for handling that, but they have a device against people who overproduce, or produce to meet the market. They have a device for that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Change the scheme!

HON. MS. YOUNG: Carrying on with the report, I refer back to limiting the future application of new trends and technologies as they apply to that industry or forcing B.C. consumers to pay more for B.C. products just because they happen to be grown or raised here.

"Yet all three of these developments have happened in a greater or lesser degree with the passage of time and the greater entrenchment of the marketing boards as regulatory bodies. The result is that for a number of products, B.C. consumers must pay markedly higher prices than consumers pay for the same things in either Alberta or Washington."

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Here I have a copy of the Seattle Times, dated March 3: "Large eggs, Sunnybrook, AA, fresh, 65 cents a dozen." We are paying about 87 cents a dozen for the same quality eggs.

Interjections.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Getting back to the report:

"Up to this point in time, the interest of the marketing boards has been the interest of the producer. The attitude as far as the consumers are concerned may well be covered by a sentence in the Vancouver Province of August 30, 1973, commenting on a meeting of the provincial agricultural committee in Penticton held the day previous, 'The consumer should be prepared to pay more for fruit because of better wages and inflation.' This is difficult for consumers to accept."

You'd better believe it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister relate this to the motion before us?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Hon. Chairman, I would like to point out to you that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) was allowed to raise this matter. The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

[ Page 951 ]

McGeer) spoke to this matter. I think I should be allowed the same latitude.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't say that it was not relevant; I just said to relate it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why didn't you vote against the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), then?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Because I support the Minister of Agriculture.

Interjections.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I support the concept of marketing boards, but I want to see them changed.

"Such attitudes towards customers are hard to justify today as consumer movements and 'consumerism' are becoming steadily stronger. Neither of these existed to anything like the degree they do today, when the various marketing boards were formed. It is going to be increasingly difficult to justify price increases regardless of formulae, when the people who ultimately must pay these increases have no say in those decisions."

The Consumers Association of Canada was quoted as saying:

"The association has been studying the price advances ordered by the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, which the association now believes are providing egg producers with 'better terms than can be explained.' However, one other key point was that 'consumers are not represented on the marketing boards and that no effort is made by producers to justify increases ruled by the board.' "

I will give the Milk Marketing Board credit for the fact that when they increased the price of milk, they justified it publicly, but the Egg Marketing Board does not.

As I have stated before, we support the concept of marketing boards, but we think there has not been equity with the people of this province. The people in the north have been frozen out — if I can make a pun — and so have the people on the Island. They have been outvoted on that board, with one member apiece against three from the lower mainland. There is no way they could possibly get justice, in my view.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it is necessary for us to come back once again to the Premier's estimates and the motion to reduce his salary which is before the House. In doing so I want to deal with the diversions that we've been given by the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) and by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young).

Mr. Chairman, the issue is this: the Premier called a meeting in his office which he required the Egg Marketing Board to attend. This was shortly after the election in which the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) was returned for that constituency.

The man who benefited from that meeting was Mr. Sy Kovachich, and he said this: "They had promised us support, and when they got elected I got in touch with Alf." That's the first name, Mr. Chairman, of the Member for Fort George. "I got in touch with Alf and told him, 'Look, you had better start living up to your promises.' "

Now, Mr. Chairman, what promises did Alf make? Because shortly after Alf was elected, the Premier convened a meeting in his office with the Egg Marketing Board. That meeting was not to deal with changes in legislation. It was not to deal with new orders-in-council redistributing the agricultural industry in British Columbia to benefit northern producers generally. It was called to benefit one single individual, Mr. Sy Kovachich, who, we are told today, contributed $200 to the New Democratic Party.

There is nothing wrong with that contribution, but there is something wrong with the man who made that contribution saying, "Alf, you'd better live up to your promises." There is something about that man having had a meeting convened for his benefit in the Premier's office, in which orders were given to the Egg Marketing Board to change their levies against him.

The Minister of Consumer Services can stand up and leave the impact that these were fines placed by the Egg Marketing Board, but that wasn't the major part of the $13,500 benefit that he got. Everybody who produces eggs in British Columbia makes a contribution to the Egg Marketing Board to keep its function going, and it is to provide orderly prices for eggs and a good return to the producer. That, Ms. Minister of Consumer Services, is incompatible with the very cheap prices to the consumers. If the consumer is to get eggs for next to nothing, obviously the producer is going to get a poor return.

Your position is in conflict of interest with that of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). A balance is going to have to be struck between cheap eggs for the consumer and a good return for the producers. That's a side issue. However that balance is struck it must be open and above board, and all people must be treated equally.

That isn't what happened. A demand was made by an NDP supporter to Alf to live up to his promises. We don't know what those promises were, but we do know that this meeting was convened in the Premier's office. We know the results of that meeting — a benefit to one single individual.

If the Minister of Consumer Services wants

[ Page 952 ]

changes in the law, and if the Minister of Agriculture wants changes in the law, those changes could have been brought about in October of 1972 when the Legislature was in session. Those changes in the law could have been brought forward when the Legislature met the following spring, January, 1973. They could have been brought forward again when the Legislature met in the fall of 1973, and they could have been brought forward already this session.

But no, Mr. Chairman, no changes in the law to benefit all these producers that have been championed by the backbenchers and the Ministers of the Crown. Nothing for them at all — only a benefit for this one individual who was a contributor to the New Democratic Party. Later, there was a second individual, but on this occasion one individual.

Then the members of the Egg Marketing Board, having been faced with this situation, are supposed to go out and defend to egg producers in general the position they took with respect to Mr. Sy Kovachich. They could understand the impossible situation, even if the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture couldn't understand it.

I think the public can understand that, Mr. Chairman. It is pretty basic and it is pretty straightforward: one law for everyone. The Minister of Consumer Services made what would have been an effective speech if she were a Member of the opposition demanding changes in the law. But she isn't a Member of the opposition. She's a Member of the government, and it is her responsibility to make changes in the law — not for one but for all.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let's get back to the issue that stands above all: integrity in government — the fact that the Premier must be clean as a hound's tooth in the way that he conducts the public affairs of this province. It isn't good enough to answer specific charges laid in affidavits by citizens of British Columbia with vagueness and obfuscation. Direct answers must be given to specific questions.

I ask the Premier once more: did he or did he not say to Mr. Brunsdon and other members of the Egg Marketing Board, "If you speak about this outside my office, I will deny every word I said"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the salary of the Hon. Premier, as provided for in vote 2, be reduced by $1.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 29

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, when you report the proceedings of the committee to the Speaker, I trust that you will report that a division took place on vote 2 and request that it be recorded in the Journals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 2 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No! Mr. Chairman, the opportunity was presented to the backbench of the government party to reduce the Premier's estimates by $1, from I believe $52,000 to $51,999, hardly enough to starve his family, just enough perhaps to buy a dozen eggs.

But the opportunity was not taken by them to record their displeasure and the situation that presently exists where the Premier of the Province of British Columbia has been charged with a very serious offence; he's been charged five times in this Legislature of this very serious offence, and has failed to take the necessary logical, straightforward and simple steps to clear his name.

I say clear his name, but in actual fact, it goes beyond the name of the Premier, beyond his own personal name. It goes to the very office that he holds and the whole office of the Premier of the Province of British Columbia, its integrity and its honesty and its ability to function in future as the moral authority, as leader of the government for British Columbia.

The situation we are faced with is the Premier having been accused by affidavit, by four members of the public, small men in comparison with the Premier of the Province of British Columbia, people who perhaps had to think very hard before they took that step.

He was accused by them of not giving the story of a meeting in his office. These people did not go out deliberately to accuse the Premier; perhaps I should correct that misunderstanding. What they did was they swore affidavits which gave the situation as they understood it to be, as they honestly and

[ Page 953 ]

genuinely believed it to be, at those meetings back in 1972.

The Premier's answers in the House to questions contradicted that. It's a clear case of contradiction. We tried first in the House. I made a request to the Premier in the Legislature, made a request to him to reconsider his original answer, to reconsider it in the light of the printing of the Brunsdon affidavit in The Province newspaper.

He refused. He declared that he remembered very well, and he refused and repeated the statement that he had made the day previous.

So we had the situation where, following that, we had the Minister of Agriculture getting up in this House, doing his best never to say that he supported the statement to the Premier, pleading amnesia whenever we got close to that particular question, stating he couldn't quite remember, was not interested in remembering, and didn't think it was an important matter to remember.

We went through days of debate, days of debate as all of us in the opposition tried to pin him down on what actually took place and what his recollection was.

We asked him again to check with his civil servants if his own memory was defective. It's standard procedure. Ministers who have civil servants present at meetings are assumed to be able to check with them. He refused point blank and indeed made statements which said that it would not be in the interest of the civil servants concerned or of the agricultural industry for them to make public statements to the press. I might say that they have not been making statements to the press and other Members as well.

So, we're in a situation where we arrived at the estimates of the Premier. We once more tried to get the record set straight. We have tried time after time after time for a judicial inquiry. It was first mentioned maybe, I don't know the exact date, maybe eight or nine days ago, by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). It's been repeated. It was repeated by me on a number of occasions. It was repeated by others. It was repeated today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), repeated today by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and of course the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) as well, in his intervention earlier in the speech.

We're in a situation where despite every opportunity being given to the Premier of the Province, of British Columbia to not only clear his personal name but to restore the moral authority of his office which is necessary for him to govern in this province, he has refused.

Today we put forward a motion, in some ways an insignificant motion, to reduce the salary of the Premier by $1 from $52,000 to $51,999.

We gave the opportunity there for the backbench of the New Democratic Party to tap him on the knuckles, give him a rap on the knuckles, and point out to him that the credibility of the party was also at stake in the issue of the credibility of the Premier. The credibility of the party is at stake because by failing to take the necessary, simple, logical, straightforward steps to clear his name, he has, of course, left people with the impression that he has something to hide. And that something which he wishes to hide cannot stand the light of public inquiry or scrutiny.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: According to the Gospel of Saint David.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I'm wrong on this — I've made these statements outside the House — I am quite willing to be sued. I would be quite willing to defend myself in court against slander charges, or libel charges, in connection with the people who have printed these statements that I have made — or indeed had them on the air, if that's the case. All this opportunity has been presented to the Premier to clear his name. He's failed to do so.

I am astonished by the New Democratic Party. I do not understand how they are going to be able to talk to their supporters, many of whom of course have been in touch with me over the last 10 days, complaining and worrying about the fact that the government...

AN HON. MEMBERS: Name names.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...is not acting as they would like to see it act, and as they expected it to act when they worked to get it elected to office.

The situation also affects us as individuals in this Legislature. We are all sent here by the electors of British Columbia to do their business. There are standards that they expect us to live up to. I admit, Mr. Chairman, to you that I have on a number of occasions — three, to be exact — breached the rules of this House. Why? For this very reason: it is not, as the Premier has said, simply for posturing.

It is not for political advantage. I do not feel I can gain any political advantage for making an accusation as serious as that. It is not that. It is that it is our duty in opposition to make clear to the government that the powers of government are limited, that they cannot exceed the law, that they cannot themselves break the law and, furthermore, that they cannot lie in this Legislature.

We are in a situation which I regard as immensely serious. I do not think that we can pass this off with the red herrings that have been brought before us by the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and others. We've gone through those red herrings. We've

[ Page 954 ]

had many, many hours on them and they've been shown to be irrelevant.

We've gone through the defences presented: "Well, the Egg Marketing Board is no good; therefore, there must be a change." We've shown those to be irrelevant because of the actions taken, or inactions taken, by the government over the last 18 months.

The red herrings have failed to divert attention from the central single issue in the Premier's estimates. The defences have been quite unable to defend the Premier from his failure to come forward with a judicial inquiry and clear his name.

I have said in this House three times — in fact, I've said it five times — that the Premier has lied to this House. And I can tell you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation that the Premier has lied to this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I stated at that time that I've said in this House on a number of occasions that the Premier lied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are referring to the past?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. I said that on a number of occasions in this House I have had to make those statements. And they have been extremely painful for me to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Wait till you get a problem of conscience, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour...

When you get into a situation, Mr. Chairman, when you know full well that you have to break the rules of the House to protect the dignity of the House, you find yourself in an extremely unpleasant situation. That's the situation I've been in all this week. And why?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All your Members are laughing behind your back.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question, Mr. Chairman, is: why? Why is it that in an attempt to protect the reputation of the British parliamentary system from being accused of...? In an attempt to protect the reputation of this House from statements made in it which are denied by affidavit outside it, in an attempt to protect the integrity of this House to force this issue to an inquiry so everybody — public, ourselves, press gallery — everybody can learn what the truth is, I have had to breach the rules of this House.

I regret having done it, because it is not an easy thing to do when you have respect, as I have and have had over the last six years, for the institutions of British parliamentary democracy.

The situation is this, however: we cannot, I cannot, in conscience sit here and debate the estimates of a man who sits as the Premier of this province and who, at the same time, lies to this House.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I order you to withdraw.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will not.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply on vote 2, the Hon. Second Member for Victoria was on his feet and again called the Premier a liar. I asked him to withdraw; he refused. I ordered him to withdraw; he again refused.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Does the Hon. Member dispute the report?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member prepared to withdraw the statement that he made in committee?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I cannot, Mr. Speaker, in conscience, withdraw.

MR. LEWIS: You're late for the news.

MR. SPEAKER: I must order you to withdraw that statement, under the rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: With regret, Mr. Speaker, I will reject your order.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to point out to the Hon. Member that he has stated, as I understand it, that he is prepared to respect the rules of parliament; but in this matter he will not. I pointed out to the Hon. Member yesterday that if he had an attempt in mind to bring the conduct of another Member before the House on a point of privilege, he rejected that opportunity a week ago.

[ Page 955 ]

Having failed to respond to the very precise rules of parliament himself, it ill befits him to either attack the House, another Member or, indeed, the Speaker.

I have no intention to respond in anger, or to change the penalty for the offence, by reason of any anger I might feel at what is happening to the rules of parliament and the dignity of this House and the authority of the Chair. I therefore ask you to leave again, as I did yesterday.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

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

MR. PHILLIPS: In the dying hours of the debate last night I wanted to talk about rural electrification and the subsidy. Now I'll take that opportunity to do so.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, I'd like to point out to the Premier that I feel the formula we are working under today is far outdated. The reason I say that, Mr. Chairman, is that most of the areas that that formula was devised for now have power. It's the areas outside that have not been within the formula that today still are using candles.

I feel with the amount of money this province has, that the formula should be changed so that those people who have gone maybe a little farther away from communities, from those areas that are maybe not quite so closely populated....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I was going to suggest to the Hon. Member that the matters concerning Hydro be brought up under the....

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's a separate rural electrification vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am aware of that. It can also be discussed either....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I would prefer that we deal with the votes as they come up; that's the practice of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that it's at the discretion of the Minister at what point he wishes to answer questions, and if he wishes to answer them under his own vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's fine. I'll be most happy to oblige by that ruling and let the Premier have the week-end — I hope the week-end or will it be later this afternoon? — to know that I'm going to ask this question so that he'll be prepared to answer it.

One other item I'd like to discuss, Mr. Chairman — and maybe the Premier will advise me that this is the wrong place to discuss that — is perpetual funds. Now should that be discussed under the...?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Finance.

MR. PHILLIPS: Under what vote in Finance?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Finance's vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Under the Minister of Finance vote of the Premier. Now what about the B.C. Railway?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: So it can be discussed under the Premier's office.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Be my guest.

MR. PHILLIPS: There was a lot of discussion in this Legislature last year about the extension of the railway from the Peace River area into Fort Nelson. The Premier had a lot to say about that extension. He said it was built in haste and that it was poorly engineered. I'd like to ask the Premier, after reviewing the situation, what steps are being taken to rectify the situation that he described? I won't buy the fact that this was built in haste and wasn't properly looked after, because I have the reports of the last three or four years by the chief engineer of the railway, who took trips over that railway and reported that everything was in order. Now, why would the same engineer come back and put in a derogatory report?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we have the report. One beneficial part of the report that shouldn't be overlooked is that they did say that up to the use the standards were fair to that use. They weren't totally critical. In terms of the standards, a major expenditure will have to be made to upgrade them to national standards.

The cost figure, as I recall it — I'm sorry Mr. Norris is not here today — was something like $12 million. That is the aim — to upgrade the railway. I'm glad that we have the report so we know where to go from here. We would want that railroad to be in the best condition possible.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you plan immediately on bringing this expansion up to...

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're working on it right now.

[ Page 956 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: ...national standards — to the standard of the cross-country CNR lines?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The recommendation is that. That's the eventual goal.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many years are you talking about, Mr. Premier? Are you talking about a 10-year period, or are you going to do it tomorrow?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There are two factors involved. One is the traffic load that it's carrying now and the anticipated traffic load, and that will condition it. I can't give you a number of years, but they are upgrading now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, has the president of the railway studied the third report of the railway safety inquiry handed down as the report on the CNR and the CPR?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've read it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Has this report been applied to the...?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is this the one prepared for the BCR by CN and CP?

MR. PHILLIPS: Right. The Canadian Transport Commission.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, that's on CN and CP. No, I'm not familiar with that report.

MR. PHILLIPS: This report outlines deficiencies in the safety features of our two national railways. It's a fairly comprehensive report. I think that the president of the railway should be aware of the report and should apply the same recommendations that are handed out in this report to the British Columbia Railway, if he's so concerned about safety, to see if indeed our provincially-owned railway does have the same deficiencies as, indeed, the Canadian National Railway and the CPR have. Would the Premier advise me that some action will be taken in that regard?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) informs me that he is familiar with that report, and I would suggest you bring up the detailed questions under his debate. I'm sorry, I can't give you detailed answers at this point.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, to the Premier: may I direct his attention to the matter of energy sources, uses and future uses so far as it affects British Columbia? I don't intend to deal at length in my opening into the question that I posed to the Premier, but I think we'll deal with a matter of policies significant to the future of British Columbia. I trust that what I may say in advance will give him an opportunity to consider what his position is.

There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that throughout the world, North America in particular, and some sections in Canada, we are facing today serious problems with regard to the availability of energy supplies and the way in which those energy sources are being used. The most immediate and obvious consequence of the action by other world powers has been to inflict upon some sections of the United States and Canada a critical shortage of petroleum.

This has affected most individuals in a way that they clearly recognize — their ability to operate their private passenger motor vehicles used in commerce and the consequences to our society from restrictions on that use.

We in British Columbia so far have been exceedingly fortunate in this immediate situation. There is no shortage of gasoline and motor-vehicle oils with which to operate private passenger vehicles. There has been no significant increase in the price that we pay, but I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if one looks seriously at the future of resource availability, to continue to believe that we in this province can somehow or other escape the fate that is affecting other parts of the world is truly living in a dream. Aside altogether from petroleum use for private passenger vehicles, we in the Province of British Columbia are exceedingly fortunate with respect to the availability of natural gas.

I don't intend to deal with consequences of recent price increases. I'm more concerned about the statistics that are available as to the future of supplies.

Future of supply is measured by different people in different ways. Some people say that we can run out of our natural gas supply in a decade. Some say two decades. Some say much longer than that.

Mr. Chairman, while it may be of little consequence to the Members in this House to talk about one or two decades, it is of very grave consequence to the children of people in this House, to the children of all people in the Province of British Columbia and Canada. That 20 years is not very long; 30 years is very little longer. Therefore I think that the government at this particular time should be addressing itself to the problem of resource use, resource conservation.

I know it's tough. It's difficult in the Province of British Columbia if you are heating your home with natural gas or oil to respond to any suggestion that we should turn down the thermostat a couple of

[ Page 957 ]

degrees. No one really recognizes what significance this has in the long-range picture. No one recognizes the advantages it may be if you put a sweater on and lower the temperature in your home. No one recognizes the significance of leaving your car at home and walking a bit or taking a bus. It doesn't matter much to us. We fail to see the future for this province and for our young citizens.

I suppose that if one were to consider it deeply we would recognize that industry depends upon the use of energy resources and that the hope that we all have on all sides of this House that secondary industry will flourish in this province will depend upon our energy resources. The jobs they will provide will depend upon energy resources — not in 1974 or '79 or '84, but in the decades following that. I think therefore that it is incumbent for the government at this time to direct itself to the policies that the government must establish.

The actions need to be taken by the Government of British Columbia, to ensure that until the energy resource problem is resolved — if it can be resolved — we so direct the affairs of our society as to ensure that we never reach that position, which I mentioned two years ago in this House, of being in possession of the last gallon of gasoline, the last quart of oil with no place to turn.

I recognize from the reading I have done that technology offers to us the possibility of relief: solar power, nuclear power, fission or fusion, choose what you want. But all of the technologists who deal with these matters are honest enough to indicate that the solutions to the technology involved in making those sources of power available to us are 10 or 20 or more years away.

The United States of America faces a situation today where, if they cannot solve their problem with regard to the cost of petroleum resource imports, the only energy resource which they have to meet the growing demand is coal. They face the prospect of mining out the coal resources they have for production of electrical energy. The possibility of manufacturing gasoline and petroleum products from coal, the technology for which is not very advanced, is how they will have to solve their problem if they cannot somehow or other close the gap between use, which is rising on an exponential curve, and supply, which is almost a straight line.

As I said, we don't seem to be in that position. We don't appear to be in that position. But we in the Province of British Columbia cannot disregard the danger that faces us perhaps 20 years hence, equally as much as the danger which faces the North American–United States economy at this particular time.

I would like to know from the Premier the extent to which his government is addressing itself to this problem and what we may expect from him and his government over the months and years to come to resolve it.

The President of the United States, in an attempt to conserve the petroleum resource, urged the people of his country on a voluntary basis to suspend their driving on Sunday. In some areas gasoline sales aren't available on that day. Yet surprisingly, the amount of the petroleum resource which is conserved by that measure is less than 1 per cent of their consumption. There are other alternatives which would have a far greater effect. One, for example: if the building codes in the United States were changed so as to require the better insulation of homes and buildings, it would reduce the consumption of the petroleum resources by 2 per cent — a very significant amount.

I only offer those examples to indicate the ways in which we may approach this problem, but, indeed, the minor significance of the change it can make. I think clearly that we in our society will be obliged to make some far greater sacrifices so far as our life-style is concerned and the life-style of future generations is concerned.

Some of the alternatives to the supply of dwindling energy sources as we know them today is to repeat again some of the mistakes made in the past. We were told by reports from the Energy Board established under the former administration what the increasing demands of electric power would be in this province. Certain suggestions were made as to how these increasing demands could be met. In general terms, it came down to the suggestion that over the next short few years we would need to double our productive capacity, to do all over again what we have done before. But when you consider the other consequences of doubling what we have done before, when you recognize the impact of the production of hydro-electric energy sought after in many areas of the world now, when you consider the environmental cost there has been in the production of the hydro-electric energy sources we have now, what are we to face if they have to be done all again?

I was delighted a few months ago to read the statement by the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in that he, in his capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro, was asking that company to reassess the future demands for electric energy. I took from that some hope that that Minister and perhaps this government was questioning, as many citizens question, the need to double our capacity. This, of course, can only be achieved if we as a government and as a people are prepared to be more conservation-minded than ever before.

Conservation is so often thought of under the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. How do we preserve our wildlife, our birds, our land, and so on? But I really think the message has got to go out to the

[ Page 958 ]

people of British Columbia and the rest of Canada that conservation means much more than that. It may take a great deal of assistance from government, and it may take some hard decisions on the part of government to realize these objectives. But if we don't start now in 1974, when will we reach the end of the journey?

Another matter dealing with energy: The conflict I recognize developing between the government of this province and the national government — indeed, between the governments of all of the provinces and the national government, particularly those provinces which have natural resources available to them in significant supply. Some of the remarks I am going to make now will deal more than with energy, but I'll start with energy.

The Premier, at the First Ministers' conference, put forward his government's position with respect to energy. Two proposals.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I recognize with some regret the recent announcement that the meeting to be convened between those First Ministers to deal with this matter has apparently been put off forever, as the Premier just recently in this House.... If he didn't predict, he wondered. I think that's a shocking situation at this particular time.

But to return to the matter of the position the Premier has taken. Fundamental to the position of British Columbia is that if the energy resources and distribution in Canada can be nationalized, the Premier would be prepared to commit our natural energy resources to that scheme.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think, Mr. Member, I have.... (Mike not on.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Premier use the mike?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry. I would take that to the people as an issue because it's a major constitutional change.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I was going to come to that. I appreciate that the Premier, having taken this position, would go to the people for their mandate. But I think I would be accurate if I were to say that I do not believe the federal government will accede to that offer. I'm not saying whether I agree with you or disagree; all I'm saying is that I don't believe the Government of Canada is prepared to approach the solution to the energy problem predicated upon a nationalization of the industry from coast to coast.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Neither is my own party.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: So we have this clear position. I therefore ask the Premier that if that is the case, if the Government of Canada will not accede to that point of view, then what is his position, and what are you doing in the face of current federal government developments to ensure that this province is not going to suffer?

Let me develop that further; and here I will leave the energy problem specifically and deal with natural resources in general.

Constitutionally, as the Premier well knows, and I don't have to remind him of this, the exploitation of natural resources is the responsibility and the private preserve of each of the provinces. The federal government has never suggested that it was otherwise. Indeed, certain developments and allowances under federal law, such as the Income Tax Act, clearly recognize this provincial function under the constitution as we presently have it in Canada.

Now for almost a century in this country the attitudes of the national government have been protective of industry and manufactured products largely centred in the central provinces. The tariff scheme has been developed along those lines. Federal government aid has been developed along those lines.

As my friend, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has said publicly on other occasions: politically, Canada, like Gaul, is divided into three parts — eastern Canada, central Canada and western Canada.

That strength has, over 100 years, left western Canada and eastern Canada in a secondary position. Manufacturing in central Canada has been consistently supported by the laws passed by the national governments and the policies which those several governments have seen fit to implement.

What has happened to the western provinces? — and let's take this province. The national government said: "You have your natural resources. Exploit those natural resources. Seek overseas markets for those resources. Make yourself wealthy if you can, provide the needs for your people if you can, out of the exploitation of those natural resources." The national government didn't care anything more than that.

But now, Mr. Chairman — and this is why I say the government today must decide what it is going to do with respect to our control of natural resources, including energy and petroleum — because of an international situation which has developed with regard to oil, and the growing concern about the future of energy resources, our national government is changing its tune, because natural resources are now being recognized as of ever-increasing value, in particular the non-renewable ones.

The Province of Alberta is being affected by this. The Province of British Columbia will be affected by this so far as the petroleum resource is concerned. I wonder how long it will be before the Government of Canada recognizes that our forest resource should perhaps be treated the same way.

[ Page 959 ]

What we are seeing developing in Canada today is a constitutional change by other than constitutional means. By the use of the taxing power that is vested in the national government we are having the British North America Act changed, when the 10 provinces and the federal government over recent meeting have been unable to agree on a method for change.

I'm not suggesting that we in British Columbia should act like some minor principality, or should act as some of the other independent states in this would have acted. I'm not suggesting that we should break Confederation into 10 separate, competing states. All I'm saying is that until we have this matter rationalized, I expect the Government of British Columbia to be in the strongest position it possibly can be to ensure that the provinces maintain their full share and position in Confederation.

The Prime Minister several years ago wrote a book about federalism as he saw it. He saw the need for a strong, central government. He recognized, however, the propriety of strength at the provincial level, and I supported him in that regard.

But I am afraid that what we are seeing, Mr. Chairman, is the growing strength of a central government beyond that which is required for the proper conduct of the affairs of Canada. And under our system the growth of strength of the national government always takes place at the expense of the provinces.

So be strong.

I'd like to know how the Government of British Columbia intends to be strong. Are we going to have some means of meeting whatever the national government's programme will be for the establishment of a national petroleum corporation? We don't know yet what that is going to produce. Are we ready for this? Would the Premier please indicate how we will meet the threat, if it comes, from such a corporation?

I'm sure the Premier saw, as I did, and wondered about the reports in The Province. There were two of them on the same page. The federal Finance Minister, Hon. John Turner, speaking in Vancouver yesterday, said: "The federal government is willing to reframe the tariff structure so that western Canada can participate in a wider economic base."

That's an admission that the tariff structure in Canada has been contrary to the interests of western Canada, a position which the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) placed before the national convention of the Liberal Party six years ago.

Mr. Turner went on to say: "This is one of the proposals to encourage secondary industry in the West." Well, he has not yet heard from Premier Lougheed or Premier Barrett regarding their requirements. Now I'm not criticizing the Premier for not giving him his requirements. I just hope that he will give us some indication of what the requirements in that regard may be.

But of greater concern to me than this news report, indicating a sudden awareness on the part of the national government that western Canada has been badly done by in the field of tariffs, is the companion story from Ottawa. A headline on resources: "Gillespie Switches Strategy. 'The government has abandoned attempts for an overall industrial strategy,' Trade Minister Alastair Gillespie said Thursday. 'Instead...."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yesterday?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll read you the report again.

"Ottawa: 'The government has abandoned attempts for an overall industrial strategy,' Trade Minister Alastair Gillespie said Thursday. 'Instead, efforts are being made to come up with coherent policies and strategies for specific industries in order to increase opportunities for both secondary manufacturing industries' — and get this — 'and greater domestic development of natural resources.' "

The Government of Canada is concerning itself with greater domestic development of what is the provinces' responsibility. But let me go on, because the horror story is not finished yet.

"Gillespie told the annual meeting of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute that world scarcities have given the country new chances to profit from export of processed resources."

It gets worse:

"Recently introduced legislation which would give the government..."

and that must be the national government

"...power to control exports of unprocessed products was a tool that could be used to encourage domestic development of natural resources. Gillespie said the proposed changes, amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act, would only be used as a measure of last resort."

The Minister concluded, apparently, by saying: "But it is a power we should have, we being the national government." So I am aware that the governments of the provinces and the national government are obliged to meet to resolve matters of national concern, and I welcome that in many instances. But as a British Columbian, a Canadian, who has seen what has developed over the last two decades and reflecting upon what the history of Canada has been over the past 100 years, I believe that we must take heed of these increasing powers that a federal minister says that we should have even though we'll only use them as a last measure, and make certain that confederation as it is intended to

[ Page 960 ]

work for the benefit of each segment of the country and the country as a whole, is not somehow or other thwarted by ever-growing strength at the national level.

Because while the national government may have suddenly recognized the tremendous value of resources in the west, and is now turning its attention to those resources and the financial gain that can be earned from the exploitation of those resources, I say to the Premier that the political division of Canada in three parts has not yet changed.

Central Canada still controls the national government. And what they are doing today is to turn to the resource-rich west and say: "Oh, well now we've got to make it available to these people in central Canada." I don't want to see the industries starved in central Canada either. Or the people there do without oil or gas to heat their homes and all the needs that there may be. But we must be strong enough to stand up against the political power that is waged from central Canada at the national level which will bring about policies of the national government which will destroy the concepts of Confederation as I see it, by eroding the provincial powers.

Let us confederate. Let us have interprovincial and national co-operation. But let us make certain that we take the steps that are required in the Province of British Columbia so that we deal from a position of strength as equals, not from a position of weakness.

I suppose what I've done has posed to the Premier what is an unfair question to handle in committee. Can he give me three or four short answers?

I fully appreciate that without preparation perhaps he's not able to respond. But I am sure that he can indicate to the committee now some of his concern and that over the coming weeks and months his government and this assembly will have the opportunity of considering and debating those measures which we must take to ensure that our partnership in Confederation will continue strong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I do hope that your speech gets a great deal of coverage because it warrants it. I can't think of any more important economic matters that must be discussed in this province.

First of all I'd like to make a couple of general statements in response to what you've said and then particularize from our government's point of view.

I find it very, very difficult to deal with a federal jurisdiction that constantly shifts the goal posts, not only at conferences, but between Minister and Minister. I don't want what I'm saying to be interpreted as purely a partisan statement around the federal government. I feel it's the nature of the beast itself....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you made that speech as a Liberal back in Ontario they'd be chasing you out of town. Yours was a straight western legislator's speech, and it has a great deal of valid basis on historical fact without a partisan political line. But I find the nature of that beast in Ottawa is so amoeba-like, it's like punching and trying to get a response and it's jelly.

I've gone to a number of federal-provincial conferences now. All of the provinces come and clearly spell out a position, or not so clearly spell out a position, but at least they've had something on paper saying "we feel we want to do this, this, this, and this." In almost every instance the conferences, whether it's because of their nature, or by design, break down after the provinces make their statement into a sort of a question and answer thing among the provinces rather than a strong federal government stating a position on philosophy and principle.

I read the Prime Minister's book too, related to co-operative federalism, and I happen to believe in co-operative federalism. I'm not a Liberal, I am a Democratic Socialist. But within the frame of our confederation, regardless of political affiliation, the only way the confederation can work is a commitment to the nation made up of these separate jurisdictions.

To those people who talk about Quebec separatism, or western separatism, they're talking nonsense. Because the destruction or separation of one part of this country affects the whole. We're together whether we like it or not. And if we don't like it, just think of the alternatives, and that will push us back into liking it in a hurry.

When we talked to the federal government, at the federal level, about energy sources, I made it very clear that I went back with two policies. One, I knew, was not accepted politically by any of the other provinces, two of which are of the same political stripe as I, and certainly not accepted at the federal level. I'm odd man out in that.

But I felt I had to openly state my position because I believe it very strongly. I believe that the natural resources that are non-renewable, the natural energy resources that are non-renewable, are a national heritage that have a prime requisite of protection for all of the people of this country.

Now, I believe that the best way to protect it, to use your own words, is having the government come in to control, so the government may take some hard decisions on the part of government. But if we don't take the decisions in 1974, where are we going?

Now, it is my firm belief that the best way at this point to ensure us of the best use of those non-renewable resources for our needs in Canada is through public ownership and a public Crown

[ Page 961 ]

corporation such as we established in wartime through Polymer, which was at arm's length from the government. His Honour the former Lieutenant Governor was the factor in establishing Polymer, and became recognized as a great Canadian, before even greater recognition as our Lieutenant-Governor, prior to our present very good Lieutenant-Governor.

But the Hon. John Nicolson was involved in Polymer. He came from a business background, established it, and demonstrated what a Crown agency could do in that particular area.

Well, I made my presentation. It drew a great deal of interest. I had to read with some wry sense of satisfaction that the Toronto Star said "it's no longer socialism, it's now practical." Okay, I accept that when something becomes acceptable — political, but you don't like the label — dump the label and say it's practical. But nonetheless I'm convinced that it is practical to have national ownership of gas and oil.

Now, I know in saying this that I open a very dangerous ground of giving away something the provinces have cherished, rightly so, very dearly in the BNA Act and that is absolute provincial control over their own resources.

I am very conscious of the risks involved in stating that position. That's why I said then that in no way would I commit the Province of British Columbia because we had a mandate of 38 seats, versus 10, 5 and 2. But on the 38 per cent margin in an electorate no way could I, or any Premier, commit any province to that kind of change under the BNA Act without going back to the people of the jurisdiction and having a very open, intense, competitive political debate. Because there are other people who validly hold the position "no encroachment whatsoever under any condition, on any issue." And that has to be debated by all the people in eight provinces where any change could possibly take place.

I know the risks that are involved, because again I'm out of step. It is extremely unusual, if not the first time, that a provincial Premier has said, "Yes, we're willing to give something up."

I'm convinced what I'm saying is more than just my definition of democratic socialism. My position, I feel, has the overtones of where many Canadians are at now in Confederation compared to where they were 10 years ago. Ten years ago to pronounce in this province that you would even think of sharing something with Ottawa met automatic political defeat. If you didn't state it loudly, the former government would get a microphone and announce your words through that microphone. Part of beating the drums of the political scene in western Canada, and particularly in this province, was to constantly attack Ottawa.

When I was a very young politician I learned two very safe things: (1) when in trouble, attack the CPR; (2) when in trouble attack the federal government; (3) kick the Liberals. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all the same.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They're all the same. That's not really fair, but that's the kind of cliché that could be appropriately applied by a political scientist to the atmosphere we have in this province. It's an art — no science, it's an art. Okay, it may be very true.

I took that position — and remember, Mr. Member, how far we've gone in this province to have this kind of debate. I remember two weeks after being sworn in as Premier, I made the now unremembered — if I can use that word — speech saying "Turn out the lights." How ridiculed I was at that time, and how much fun people had. That was before they turned out the lights. No one thought in those terms, and nor did I think that what I was trying to project through that statement would come to pass so rapidly. No one predicted the Arab oil embargo. But certainly the Rand Corporation, which has done research for California, predicted the kind of problems California has faced in terms of their projection that by the year 2000 California will need a medium-sized nuclear reactor power station every 8 miles on the California coast, if the present rate of growth of demand for electrical energy continues in that state. Now that's frightening. Your comments about exponential growth here in this province are very related to that.

So when you look at the national scene — and I'll go back to that and come back to the provincial one. I've made the one position, and I said at the time that I know you don't agree with it and I know my own party doesn't agree with it, but I want to say it anyway. Interestingly enough, we got a lot of mail on it.

The next one was the question related to the question you have about the federal petroleum corporation. Well, you're absolutely right. The Province of British Columbia, along with the other provinces, must guard itself in terms of the existing BNA Act, because there cannot be any changes now. The feds have gone off in this direction, and I don't see any changes. Therefore they must guard themselves against a real encroachment through a taxation policy. It's more appropriate for the forest industry. You've touched a real nerve there. But in terms of our own Petroleum Corporation, the best we can do is, when the Act arrives in the federal House, examine it closely and determine our policy in response to the Act. We are not at this point being invited to even discuss what we think should go in the Act.

I must make a statement that can't be interpreted in any other way than being political. How regrettable it is that after having had that first energy

[ Page 962 ]

conference, and being led to believe that there would be further consultation, the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are being pieced off by going down and meeting separately with the Prime Minister, and we're being left out on a limb wondering what's going on in those conversations.

Two criticisms I have. One is of the federal government for dealing directly with those two provinces. And something I've never said publicly before — I am critical of both Saskatchewan and Alberta for taking the position of responding to those direct discussions without saying, "What about the rest of our colleagues?" I think that Saskatchewan and Alberta are going to be led down the garden path if they think they can make a separate deal.

I cannot accept the argument that the federal government is consciously attempting to start an alienation between the provinces. I just don't believe any politician of any party would do that. They may be thinking that it's clever to do it this way, but I don't think they really grasp the consequences psychologically, especially here in the west, when there is a mood, a populist mood, of separatism against the central government. Your articulation of that historical argument is so valid that it doesn't need to be articulated to the populists based out there. They know Ontario's getting the best deal through the tariffs, freight rates, everything else.

Enough said on the Petroleum Corporation. We'll have to wait and see. We'll use the devices that we have through our own Petroleum Corporation.

By abolishing the Public Utilities Commission and establishing our own Energy Commission, we have attempted to gather together the best brains in Canada as staff for that commission, through Andrew Thompson and the people that we've gathered around him with their variety of really non-political backgrounds. These are skilled technical people that we have given an exciting challenge to, and I would hope that any administration that followed shortly or in the long future would understand not to attack that Energy Commission as a political structure. It is not; it is a group of highly skilled technical people who come from very rigid disciplines and are able to provide the government with basic research.

Now, the government policy alters with governments, but the skilled people that we've gathered is a major step forward — without any real attack on the PUC, without any capacity to deal with the present problems in a modern day society. Okay, so we've gathered those people together and they're expanding staff and we are getting input from them. So the Petroleum Corporation is left the energy concerns.

Mr. Member, in quieter moments of my life, I asked myself the question as to where are we going in North America? I admit that I don't have the answers, but the question frightens me. You asked today, what do we do when we reach the point when it's the last quart of oil, or the last gallon of gas? I'll tell you, we don't have any answers. We have absolutely no planning in any jurisdiction in North America for that cataclysmic end that will be here unless we have energy alternatives.

It is my opinion that the only way we can coordinate energy alternatives is again through government action — grants to private research, grants to private foundations, stimulation of university experiments — not the continuation of the standard things, but new exciting programmes. That's a hope.

But even if you double or triple the time frame to extend the existing resources through prudence, through control, and through conservation, there's still that inevitable end. When you think of the billions of years it's taken to create all those energy reserves, and how rapidly we're finishing them now, man has to be considered to be living in the golden age, because it simply can't last another 100 or 150 years at the rate we're going now.

We can take some moves in conservation. The Land Commission Act was part of that. I know that your side and our side disagreed on the method of the land Act. But basically rational people did not disagree with the concept, and that was an important ingredient of that whole debate, aside from a small percentage of people who went off on a highly hysterical kick. The basic ingredient of the debate of the Land Commission was on method rather than purpose.

How do we do it with non-renewable things? Can we ration gasoline? Can we force people to share cars instead of one car driving across the Lions Gate Bridge and politicians having to respond to that problem by saying, "Build another bridge"? Can we ask people, "For goodness' sake, travel in car pools"?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Take the pollution devices off the cars. It's self-defeating, Mr. Member. It might be okay in Cariboo, but in a heavily-populated urban area it's self-defeating.

I don't know. Can you tell people to park and ride? Can you ask somebody who spent $20,000 for a Mercedes-Benz and lives in West Vancouver to keep it parked there all week and come into town on the bus?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can, eh? How about those of us who own Volvos?

But the point is, Mr. Member, I don't think you can legislate people's behavior. If you tried it, you'd be thrown out of office. Yet you know and I know that it makes sense that there should be four and five

[ Page 963 ]

people in that car going into Vancouver and coming back every day. But it makes sense for whom? It makes sense for my neighbour; it doesn't make sense for me. When a decision comes down to us, we can't give up those creature comforts we've been really spoiled to accept.

There are people who say there's a whole younger generation who understands this problem much better. I wish I could believe that. There's no way. There's about 8 per cent. The American researcher, Theodore Roszak, who described the 8 per cent who were aware, but the other 98 per cent are emulating their parents. They're just as materialistically conscious as we are.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, they are. You look at the number of young people who are buying cars and buying the trappings and everything else. Okay.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tiffany lamps. I resent the competition in that field. Sorry.

But, Mr. Member, no political party, including mine, yours, the Socreds or the Tories, are discussing the dramatic alterations of our life-style. No political party has made a voting commitment to say, "Elect us, and we will dramatically alter the materialistic life-style of North America." Until such a party comes into existence and makes such a commitment and forces this debate into the public arena, the most we can do is take the Member's good suggestion and concentrate on conservation of the resources we have now, especially the non-renewable ones.

Having said that, I want to make one more comment about coal. According to the Forbes Institute in the United States — Forbes magazine, which has its own institute of research — tells us they have 450 years worth of coal at the present rate of use in the United States. We can make gasoline from coal, but what for? Why take one energy source, convert it to another energy source, and lose so much power in between?

For example, our own B.C. Hydro made in good conscience a decision a few years ago to build a thermal plant creating electricity by converting natural gas in the Burrard thermal unit. How wasteful, how really wasteful to have natural gas used to be burned to produce another power source, electricity. In the transition you lose a fantastically high percentage of the value. I'm sorry for being so long, Mr. Member, but I wanted to answer those particular things.

The forest thing. It's the forest thing that has to be stated publicly, Mr. Member, and that is really the nerve of what was raised in the House. I don't blame anyone who is in the private forest industry in this province and public if they're showing increasing signs of concern about federal encroachment on their essential dealings with the provincial governments, regardless of party. Parties change; the forests continue to grow.

When I was asked this question at the energy conference as an attempt to shoot down my argument for natural gas and oil, I said forestry is the same as wheat. It's agriculture; it's renewable. The only difference is the time span between crops. There is no valid argument for federal control over a renewable resource like forestry.

I took up that position very strongly. I said if you want to talk about a kind of wheat board.... If we're faced in the forest industry with the need for co-operative wheat board marketing, well, that's one thing. But no way do we see the forest industry in the same light as the non-renewable oil and gas. There is absolutely no need for federal intervention in the forest industries under the control of any province unless a province is singularly determined to destroy that resource without good conservation policies, and I don't think any province has gone that far.

We might disagree in their taxation policy. We might disagree in terms in the amount they spend in reseeding and reforestation, as we did when we were in opposition, as we've dramatically increased. But we do not believe a valid case can be made whatsoever for federal intervention on those absolute controls under the BNA Act that a province has over such a resource as forestry.

Now, I don't find my position to be conflicting at all. When I was questioned about it, I said, okay, and I made the analogy between wheat and the forests — the difference is the time span. I would not support my party if they altered their position on that, and I would fight vigorously against any provincial party. Once you lose control of the renewable resources, you lose the control that allows that separateness and that drive to be able to develop at the provincial level in other areas.

The central government can't do everything. The greatest way of giving impetus to the central government is by having the provincial governments have control of the renewable resources.

But for the life of me — and I want to conclude on this — I do not see good federal-provincial planning on resources coming about as long as we have that monolithic structure of the federal government which allows one federal Minister, Mr. Turner, to be quoted that he hasn't heard from British Columbia when, in actual fact, the other Minister, Mr. Gillespie, has been meeting with our officials on the very same issue. Then, after having met with our officials, Mr. Gillespie comes out and says,"We're going to change the goal posts."

What is needed, in my opinion, are two things: a

[ Page 964 ]

clear-cut statement by the federal parties running for office, including my own, exactly where they stand in the resource field, and to mean it, so that when people vote they know what they're voting for. Secondly, quite honestly — and I don't mean this negatively — shake up that bureaucratic structure in Ottawa and the overlapping that exists. The new Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) would have to nod his head in agreement with this. That jungle!

AN HON. MEMBER: He was part of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, he belonged to a bit of an expediting role. I can just imagine the kind of frustrations he must have felt in terms of trying to get on a problem and go through the maze to get to the solution. It is such a colossal empire. The dependence that the cabinet Ministers have on their Deputies, not on the question of administration but on the question of policy decisions, is very, very great.

Maybe it's the structure that is causing it. I'd rather believe it was the beast rather than the politician. But, nonetheless, that is a major barrier. I find it increasingly more difficult to retain patience when we're dealing with Ottawa and trying to solve problems. That's why I'm especially pleased and surprised that Mr. Marchand has responded so quickly. I didn't mean it as a threat, but I'm sure they read it as B.C. rattling on this agreement. Not ratting, rattling. The response has been positive. But I don't know.

I want this country to succeed, but I don't think we can continue to go on without clear-cut federal policies. Even if we disagree with them, there's got to be some policy leadership from Ottawa.

MR. FRASER: I just have a few short questions to the Premier. Yesterday I asked a few questions on these special funds, and he didn't answer anything really. But I would like to know what the average interest rate is that these funds are deriving. I can't see anything in here where that is reported. I asked that question yesterday, and I think the Premier overlooked the fact that I had asked it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry, Mr. Member, what is it?

MR. FRASER: Well, the average interest return that these special funds are getting; there is 380 some-odd million dollars in these special funds. What average return percentage-wise are you getting from these in any calendar year, preferably 1973?

The other thing I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, is to probably issue a letter out to all the MLAs of what Ministers are in charge of what funds. I don't think a lot of the MLAs realize that. You answered yesterday that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is in charge of the Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund, but I doubt that a lot of the MLAs here know that. The same with the Green Belt Protection Fund. It's been swung around; it's changed its location. I think a memo out of your office laying out which Minister to contact because they come up all the time.

While I'm on the subject of news releases, I'd like to mention the Premier's news release, and suggest to him that there should be a lot more accuracy going out of the Premier's office to the news than has been happening.

I particularly refer to one lately, covering an assessment committee meeting. The report that was sent all over this province was totally inaccurate.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was taken from The Province, I think.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then it's bound to be inaccurate. (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: I think a lot more accuracy should go into that publication.

Another observation I have, Mr. Chairman, is the special warrants that have been issued; we're beyond $60 million in special warrants. I rather think that that's a little high. It certainly means there must be something wrong with our budgeting when we have to have.... And that isn't for a full fiscal year by any means. At the end of January I think it was already, in 10 months, $58 million to $60 million-odd. I'm not objecting to the amount in them — but why is it necessary for so many?

The other thing which I don't think has been mentioned, but the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) brought it up last fall, is the taxation of golf courses.

As to where we are today, I want to read a letter that the Premier wrote on November....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Legislation this session on that.

MR. FRASER: I see. Well, the Premier says there's going to be legislation this session on golf courses. I was going to read this letter, but I won't.

But I would tell you that these golf courses have now been all assessed, and their assessments are out of this world. It's going to lock some of them up if some action isn't taken. I'm pleased to hear you say that you're going to have legislation this session.

I would really like to hear from the Premier, Mr. Chairman, regarding the average return that these special funds are getting — $380 million-odd.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry, the last question,

[ Page 965 ]

Mr. Member.

MR. FRASER: Well, back to the first question. What is the average rate of return we are getting from these special funds?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The perpetual funds, I am advised, are in long-term bonds at 8.5 per cent. The other investments are in short-term from 8 per cent to 9 to 10 per cent — it depends on the short-term interest rates.

Special warrants: quite true there will be more than the 60 before the year's over. Two problems: 1. Inflation. 2. The new programmes that we instituted. For example: the $22 million for summer works last year, which was not a budget item.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take up if I may for a few minutes, the discussion commenced by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and carried on by the Premier of the province.

I want to speak in far blunter terms than either of them did regarding our place in Confederation.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to reassure the Premier, if it's possible to do this, about some of the alternatives facing the world in the future which shouldn't lead to the despair that many ecologists and conservationists are experiencing around the world today.

First of all there's a principle, and the Premier may well remember it from his high school physics, of the first law of thermodynamics which says that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So, in using up a non-renewable resource like petroleum, we're not forever depleting sources of energy on the face of this earth. It does mean we will have to switch to other sources of energy, the prime one of which is nuclear.

Nuclear energy is totally inexhaustible.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've been writing my brother.

MR. McGEER: I don't know if I've been writing your brother; I think I could say honestly that I haven't. But every scientist understands this.

The second thing, Mr. Chairman, that if one is worried about a future source of minerals, the ocean has unfathomable quantities of any mineral we would ever require. They can be recovered, each and every one, in inexhaustible amounts from the ocean. It's a technical problem, but it could be solved if necessary.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nodular mining.

MR. McGEER: Finally, Mr. Chairman, if we're worried about how to recover metals that have been mined and used in cans or anything else, eventually the atomic torch will come along which will allow anything to be put into an atomic furnace and the individual metals recovered by virtue of their molecular weight as the atomic beam deflects them to the individual places in the furnace.

All of these things are within our theoretical grasp today. The practical achievements that will make them a reality for our children and our children's children will be coming along at an indeterminable time in the future, but for all of them, I would think, easily before the turn of the century.

So we aren't really lacking exciting alternatives for all the things that we will require as consumers. The matter of population, of course — the density of humans on the face of the earth is something that is finite, and something for which solutions will have to be arrived at by our children and our children's children.

So I don't share the Premier's concern that we must in British Columbia conserve our supplies or change our lifestyle for fear that these convenient sources of energy will be consumed and we will be faced with no alternatives at all. We're going to have automobiles; if there isn't gasoline to run them on they will be run by chemical batteries.

For us now, there is a matter of immediate concern. That, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) said, is the potential change of British Columbia's role in Confederation in an adverse direction.

Just over 100 years ago there were debates in the Legislature of British Columbia regarding what would happen if this province joined with the other provinces of Canada in building a nation.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Right now we are having a re-creation of part of the inspiration that went into the forming of Canada, called "The National Dream," which was the building of the railroad, which the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) so dislikes. But it permitted the 10 provinces of Canada to join arm-in-arm in forming a nation though their national trade routes then, and now, go north and south.

In the debates in this chamber 100 years ago it was quite clearly pointed out by those who were reticent about joining Confederation that the rules of the game would be played for the advantage of central Canada, that we would wind up living off natural resources while central Canada would have the benefit of manufacturers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not your free-trade speech, now.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we have something worse than tariffs being imposed on us by the

[ Page 966 ]

national government — that is export taxes on our natural resources.

It has been convenient for central Canada to place tariffs on imported goods because it denies consumers in western Canada opportunities to import goods from other countries, requiring that we buy a more expensive equivalent manufactured in Ontario.

Those tariff regulations have been created for the benefit of central Canadian manufacturing industries and the people of Canada who live in these areas where these industries exist. They have been made to the deliberate disadvantage of western Canada and the Maritimes. Many people in western Canada, including myself, have battled against the concept of tariffs, and have said that a Canadian industry that was worth its salt should be able to penetrate world markets on a reciprocal basis.

I have been severely critical of the Liberal government in Ottawa, just as I was of former governments for refusing to change the rules of Confederation in such a way as to give every province an equal break. Because if we're to have manufacturing in western Canada we must be able to export to foreign markets. If there are tariffs laid against foreign goods for the benefit of eastern Canada, naturally countries are going to impose reciprocal tariffs.

It is contrary to industry, jobs, careers and opportunities in British Columbia and all of the western Canadian provinces. As a citizen of British Columbia and a legislator in this province, I resent those rules. As long as I am in public light, I will fight to see them changed.

But now, Mr. Chairman, we have something worse than that proposed by the federal government of today. That something worse is that the natural resources which we produce in western Canada and which we sell to others, whether or not they impose duties on those goods, shall have a levy placed against them by the national government to deter a return that can and should come to the western producing provinces or any other province that does produce them.

We have been at a disadvantage in Confederation for 100 years because of rules deliberately imposed for the benefit of central Canada. Now for the first time, when our natural resources become really valuable on world markets, we find the central government prepared once more to rip off western Canada because if you impose an oil export tax, and use that money for building a transit system in the City of Toronto or some purpose other than building up industry in western Canada, you have ripped off western Canada.

We have been working at a disadvantage because of tariff values in this country for 100 years on the west coast. Regardless of party, I stand up and say that British Columbia must work in concert with the other western provinces to protect our rights to our natural resources. If the national government were to change the rules of Confederation, give us all an equal break by removing tariff barriers that benefit central Canada, then it seems to me there would be a case for placing export restrictions on natural resources that now command a high price in world markets.

But I consider the potential imposition of export taxes on our natural resources to be salt in a wound that's now 100 years old.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to switch for a moment or two to another subject which I know is important to the Premier; certainly it's a deep concern of my own — that's the Columbia River treaty.

The Premier, when he was in opposition, raised the subject of how British Columbia was getting an inadequate return on the Columbia River treaty negotiations. We've established, I think, that the short-fall to British Columbia was about $340 million.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be an appropriate thing to discuss this under the Finance portfolio in terms of funds for the Columbia.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, with the Premier's leave, I'd like to ask his indulgence because the things I have to say do not deal with finance; they deal with the Premier's policies with respect to energy and energy resources. I want to relate them, if I can, to the remarks I've just made with regard to natural resources in general. It was just a year ago, Mr. Chairman, in discussing the alternative facing the province in re-negotiating the Columbia River treaty that I suggested....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, really, I must confess that I have delegated the major responsibility on the Columbia to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). I really think it would be more appropriate to raise this, in terms of policy, with that Minister.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if I raise these remarks with the Minister of Lands and Forests, you, sir, are going to find me out of order....

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no. It's an undertaking — the Columbia River — because I would only have to turn to that Minister anyway. I've delegated that authority to him.

MR. McGEER: Is this said in the hearing of whoever is going to be in the chair, because we haven't got the regular Chairman and I've been....

[ Page 967 ]

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: If the present Chairman can assure us that succumbing to boredom isn't a terminal affliction, then we have his understanding.

Vote 2 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that there was a division in the committee, and asks leave to have it recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:58 p.m.