[ Page 1221 ]

CONTENTS

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

Introduction and first reading — 1221

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

Introduction and first reading — 1221

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates On vote 11.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1221

Mr. Bennett — 1221

Mr. McGeer — 1222

Mr. Gardom — 1222

Mr. McClelland — 1223

Mr. Phillips — 1224

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1225

Mr. Gardom — 1225

Mr. McGeer — 1229

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1231

Mr. McGeer — 1231

Mr. Schroeder — 1231

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1232

Mr. Gardom — 1236

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1237

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1239

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1239

Mr. Gibson — 1242

Mr. D.A. Anderson (amendment) — 1243

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1243

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1244

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1245

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1245

Mr. Gibson — 1245

Mr. McGeer — 1246

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1248

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1249

Hon. Ms. Young — 1249

Mr. Dent — 1250

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1250

Mr. Wallace — 1251

FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to draw the attention of the House this morning to a group of students from the Royal Oak Junior Secondary Grade 10 social studies class. There are 22 of them with us today for about an hour. They are accompanied by the teacher in charge, Mr. Don McColl. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a working paper on the community college in British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT

Hon. Ms. Young presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Blind Persons' Rights Act.

Bill 72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE AUDIT ACT

On a motion by Mr. McGeer, Bill 78, An Act to Amend the Audit Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to delay the vote for too much longer but, you know, if there are things to say, we've got to hold it up for awhile.

I was a little concerned with the debate about Columbia Cellulose last night. It's true that it's all in this chamber and it's all privilege — and it should be privileged in this chamber. But reputations were being kind of maligned with a bit of gay abandon. And that kind of thing, as I read the House, would continue.

I don't see, as such, irregularities in the trading pattern. Nevertheless I've looked at sections 23 and 25 of the Act, and so that we will not continue in a negative, destructive way in this House, not let this matter consume hours of time, not let the good business of the people of this province be delayed — and so that nobody shall say that we're not doing our duty — I have issued an order this morning.

I suppose I should read it into the record, and I hope it will stop.... I will read the order into the record.

"It is ordered that Bruce Morrison" — I'm summarizing a little bit; he's a solicitor — "E.F. Smith, C.A., L.G. Smallicombe — he's a B. Comm. — and A.R. Campbell, all of the British Columbia Securities Commission, and Inspector R.N. Mulloch, Sgt. T.J. Hill, Sgt. F.L. Long, Sgt. J. Dunbar, Sgt. K.E. Salt, Cpl. M. Peters, all of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, are hereby appointed pursuant to the provisions of section 25 of the Securities Act, 1967 to make an investigation into any matter relating to trading and securities of Columbia Cellulose Co."

Members shouldn't speculate from that that somebody out there has been doing something wrong. Right? But some of the Members last night went beyond that, and I must admit it did disturb me. The First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), for example, said definitely that something's wrong — without anything to go on. That's kind of disturbing, but let's get on, as I say, with the good business of the people of B.C.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, we in the opposition welcome this inquiry. And we welcome the Attorney-General taking this action, although we feel that it may be almost a year late.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: The takeover of Columbia Cellulose happened last year.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would point out to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and to other Members of the House that there has been an announcement made indicating that an inquiry is taking place, therefore I feel it pointless to continue the debate we were debating last night — unless for a brief statement

[ Page 1222 ]

only.

MR. BENNETT: I must ask further for some clarification of the inquiry from the Attorney-General as to whether formal sittings will be held and how ordinary citizens may make submissions to this inquiry — if anyone has anything they wish to submit to it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, submit anything to Bill Irwin, by all means.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you very much.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Attorney-General for initiating an investigation. I think it's entirely appropriate and this is the kind of prompt action on the part of government that is very welcome indeed. We wish it were a consistent pattern, but we can certainly take satisfaction in the moves the government is prepared to make.

I'd like if I may to raise another matter with the Attorney-General that I would hope he would look into. It's the Attorney-General's responsibility to supervise the Companies Act and the Societies Act. There's one society that I think should be looked at by the Attorney-General's Department, because it's a society that is supported in substantial measure by the provincial government.

I refer to the X-Kalay Foundation, which last submitted an annual report on June 28, 1971. It received something like $11,000 a month from the provincial government, and, as I understand it, has been in a considerable amount of financial difficulty.

I have a letter from Price-Waterhouse, who at one time looked into the financial affairs. This is dated July 12, 1972, saying to the directors:

"We enclose estimated statement of the financial position of the society as of May 31, 1972. Although we have assisted in the preparation of this statement, which is largely based on information supplied by the directors, it has not been audited and we do not express an opinion on it, although we trust that it may be useful for purposes of discussion at tomorrow afternoon's meeting."

Here's a society that is operating with all the privileges of the Societies Act: it's not submitting an annual report as required; it's financial affairs have been looked at by auditors who've been extremely cautious about the statements they've made; it's receiving a very substantial grant from the provincial government. And it's my understanding that this foundation has since purchased a resort on Saltspring Island. I don't know where the money came from, whose money it was, but if this operation is to receive financial support from the provincial government, you better be on top of it, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll look at it, and I'd like to hear what you've got to say.

MR. McGEER: Well, you've heard it. Today I don't want to discuss a bill before the Legislature, but it's the amendments of the Audit Act that would see that every organization, every Crown corporation that gets money from the provincial government or handles the people's money, is appropriately audited so that the public knows the same standards are being applied to those Crown corporations that apply to government expenditures.

I'm not suggesting that all societies should have that kind of audit; obviously it's inappropriate. But all societies that get substantial financial support from this provincial government....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if this is the substance of the point of the bill that was introduced this morning by the Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No it isn't. My bill had nothing to say about societies. Nothing at all. I'm merely expressing an opinion, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General that any society which receives substantial grants from the provincial government should be given strict supervision by his department.

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

MR. McGEER: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman, you don't put strict financial operations in the hands of that Minister. You don't. You put it in the hands of careful financial auditors.

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

MR. McGEER: And that doesn't come under your department, Mr. Attorney-General; it comes under the Premier and Minister of Finance. That's not a legal obligation on the part of that Minister, any more than it's a legal obligation on the part of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). The legal obligation is on your part. This society, which is receiving money from the provincial government, is not complying with the Acts that you supervise, and I'd like an investigation.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): Apropos of the remarks of the first Member for Vancouver-Point Grey, Mr. Chairman, I have here from the Registrar of Companies, under cover of March 8, 1974, the last annual report files for X-Kalay Foundation Society and it bears the date

[ Page 1223 ]

June 28, 1971. I refer to the Hon. Attorney-General to Section 31 of the Societies Act:

"Every society shall hold an annual general meeting and within 14 days thereafter, file with the registrar (referring to the Registrar of Companies) a statement in the form of a balance sheet containing general particulars of its liabilities and assets, and a statement of its income and expenditures audited and signed by the auditor of  the society, or if there's no auditor, by two directors."

Section 57 refers to penalties, and Section 56 of the Societies Act refers to offences.

This society is clearly in default of the Societies Act and it's subject to penalty and it's subject to being charged. Why has an annual report not been filed? Why has your department not insisted that one be filed? I hear the Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) state that moneys go into this society annually, is that right? How much? Do you have the exact figure?

MR. McGEER: About $11,000.

MR. GARDOM: About $11,000 a month has gone into this society since 1971, and you don't see that it follows the laws of the Province of British Columbia? What's going on over there?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the government for initiating the inquiry that they've announced this morning. It's overdue, but it's a good move and certainly welcome by the opposition.

I would like the Attorney-General to consider at the same time his position with regard to the business of the agreement which was reached with the Premier and Mr. Sy Kovachich of Prince George, because the evidence delivered by the government itself last night shows that there's something very wrong here as well, and certainly deserves the interest and the attention of the Attorney-General.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) strongly urged the Attorney-General to initiate a similar kind of inquiry into this situation and we repeat that plea.

I'd also like the Attorney-General to look into the whole problem of cabinet and caucus leaks on the part of the NDP because we're seeing too many confidential reports.... In the case of the egg marketing situation, again confidential reports were leaked to the press. We've seen confidential reports leaked from the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce's (Hon. Mr. Lauk's) department.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh no. Now who's making accusations, Mr. Chairman? Now who's making accusations with nothing to back them up?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): I just know it was stolen, don't get sensitive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt the person who has the floor. Would the Hon. Member continue please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is strong evidence that the provisions of the Mineral Act were leaked to people outside of this country in advance of that legislation being introduced. The chairman of the NDP caucus said in a public meeting that there have been leaks in the party caucus and that the government would take some moves  to seal those leaks. There have been too many occasions of this government showing its sloppy administration.

Even the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has accused the government, or at least government Members, of lying; in the public press has accused the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and his officials of lying. Mr. Chairman, it's time that the Attorney-General decided to take the same kind of prompt action in regard to those questions as well, because the people of British Columbia are demanding that something be done. We don't want to see this government shying away from accountability.

The Attorney-General still hasn't answered many of our questions, but particularly in regard to the actions which have been taken with regard to leaks. I want to remind the Attorney-General, and I'm not going to reflect on the order that he gave me today, but I just want to remind him that on March 26, several days before trading was suspended, I asked a question in this House about the purchase of Columbia Cellulose, and that was several days before the trading was suspended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I believe that this matter's already been disposed of, and I would hope that we would not enter the debate again.

[ Page 1224 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, the matter hasn't been disposed of, Mr. Chairman, and I'm suggesting that there are some items that should be considered when the inquiry is going on, and that's one of them. I'm only reflecting on that simple fact that I knew something was happening; the Member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) knew that something was happening. How many other people in British Columbia knew that something was happening?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is, Hon. Member, that the opposition did propose a remedy which was followed by the Attorney-General, and I would think that this would be sufficient. Otherwise I can't see any point in further debating this matter at this time until that investigation is completed. Therefore, I would rule further discussion out of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The opposition has also on many occasions warned the government about the possibility of the dangers inherent in the Premier becoming a stockbroker. We're seeing, Mr. Chairman, many of those dangers coming true now.

All I am saying is that the Attorney-General should make it clear that we don't operate this government like some huge crap game with the taxpayers' money being risked at every roll. Crap game!

Once again I'd like to welcome that probe and again, as rationally as possible, plead with the Attorney-General to initiate the same kind of private, public and non-political inquiry into the whole mess that the Premier has got the people of British Columbia into with regard to the Egg Marketing Board, the Broiler Marketing Board and the agreement, which has now been made public that was NDP supporter in Prince George. It's time that the Attorney-General acted just as quickly on that matter, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I certainly want to add my words of thanks to the government, particularly the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, for ordering this inquiry, because I think the Attorney-General realizes, after it being hammered into him by the opposition, the official opposition, that the whole matter has to be cleared up.

I still would like to ask the Attorney-General once again that when this investigation is completed — and I hope it is proceeded with forthwith — that he studies the results of it, sees what could have happened, and if indeed nothing happened ....

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sure that the Hon. Attorney-General appreciates your appreciation, but I would ask again that you keep your remarks brief in regard to this issue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am merely repeating my request that he bring in rules and regulations or indeed legislation to see that this type of thing, this type of situation, cannot happen in British Columbia again in the future. That is also the responsibility of the Attorney-General.

We are discussing the estimates of the Attorney-General. The total of his estimated department expenditures is some $70,062,313, up from $44,127,167 last year. I would like the Attorney-General, if he will, to....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's not in order. He's discussing my department. (Laughter.) Go ahead.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I think we have to add to that a vote of his of last year, a sum of $3,501,713, which was paid to the firm of Ladner, Downes and Company, and I presume this had to be for legal advice. That is a law firm in Vancouver, is it not? I would like the Attorney-General to explain to me, Mr. Chairman.... That's $3.5 million that was paid out to a law firm in Vancouver out of the public accounts. What's that?

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

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

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe it was money transferred to them for purchase of property or something. I don't know. I'm asking you, Mr. Attorney-General. If you refer to page E188 in the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1973, expenditures for the year 1972-73, there is a.... It really took my breath away, Mr. Chairman.

Now, as I say, this could be, Mr. Attorney-General, for trust moneys paid into this law firm for purchases of something else. It could have been for the purchase of shares. I don't know. It seems to me like a tremendous amount of money to be paid for legal advice when we are paying you, Mr.

[ Page 1225 ]

Attorney-General, a whole bunch of money besides. Maybe the Attorney-General would give me an answer.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, will you stop that Minister over there from lecturing me?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, we'll get the answer. If it's not before the Public Accounts Committee, we'll provide the answer. It could not be fees because the figure would be just way out of line. It is impossible. I suppose it is some purchase or other, but I think it is before the Public Accounts Committee. If not, and you don't receive any satisfaction, will you put it on the order paper — say, sometime in April or even earlier? We'll get you the answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, how about May?

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening there was introduced into the records of the House excerpts read from a letter from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. D. Stupich) to Mr. Janzen, dated August 14, 1973. I'm not sure as to whether or not it was filed. I would ask leave to file it if it has not been filed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You may not file in committee. You would have to file when we are meeting in the House.

MR. GARDOM: We can get to that a little later today. Has it been filed or not?... tabled, I should say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not to my knowledge.

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

Emanating from that, Mr. Chairman, there certainly has been more than ever a dramatic need for a public inquiry under the provisions of the Public Inquiries Act of this province. I would like to establish the reasons once again for the request, and this is very germane to the vote of the Attorney-General because of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would point out that this request has been made repeatedly. Therefore, I would ask, if he provides further information, that it would be kept as brief as possible.

MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry. It is very difficult to hear you with so much interjection from all sides of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would just repeat the point that this request to the Attorney-General has been made repeatedly. Therefore, I would ask that he keep the comments brief.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, indeed. I shall do that, Mr. Chairman. We seem to start off with this kind of a situation that Sy knows Alf and Alf knows Dave, and Dave makes an agreement with Sy, which Dave says he doesn't make. Now that is sort of the first premise and I think perhaps that we should look at the money involved. We find a $21,000 lawful levy being reduced to $7,500 and we do not find the Attorney-General indicating to this Legislature if that was a lawful reduction.

Secondly, we find from this letter this statement:

"...as I reread the Kovachich agreement as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others." Now that is very, very significant because if we take another look back at the affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon, paragraph 10, he says:

"THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that he intended to present the draft agreement to Mr. Kovachich on the day following the said meeting."

So indeed we find now, from the letter which was apparently released to the press last night — by the Minister of Agriculture — by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), corroborative evidence of the fact that there was an agreement made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others, which puts the Premier in a very untenable position concerning his statements and earlier statements to this House.

We have to look at the dollar ramifications of it. As I say, we find $21,000 being diminished down to $7,500 and according to the way I'm reading this letter of August 14, 1973, we find that Mr. Kovachich has his permit increased to 200 cases.

Well, if memory serves, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kovachich had, I believe, 80 cases; so he has an increase of 120, at $300 per case, or he has got $36,000 more of quota as a result of an agreement with the Premier of the Province of British Columbia, according to the letter filed by the Minister of Agriculture.

If that's not need for a public inquiry, what is — when the Premier denies the agreement? What indeed is? Further, this letter is dated August 14, 1973. It's not a question of Mr. Kovachich's putting up $36,000. He can borrow it from the government at 6 per cent. What was the prime bank rate then — 9 per cent? Okay. And where did the money come from? It seems to have come, according to the second page of the letter, by special warrant. Outside of the vote of this Legislature.

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

[ Page 1226 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for Shuswap to stand in his place.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member for Shuswap repeat the remark, please? If he indicated to the House that an Hon. Member was misleading the House, I would ask him to withdraw that imputation.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm asking the Hon. Member to withdraw the remark that an Hon. Member was misleading the House.

MR. LEWIS: Well, I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman, but it is not telling the whole story.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We are not on the Minister of Agriculture's estimates, and I would ask the same thing of the Member for Shuswap, if he would keep his remarks brief.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: If he had read the rest of the letter, he would have read the fact that that was made available for moving quotas to all of the Interior, not just to Mr. Kovachich.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Langley on a point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Hon. Member was asked to withdraw a statement which he made in the House. But he didn't have the floor in the House, the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) had the floor. All he was asked to do was get up and withdraw, and he doesn't have the right to take part in the debate at this time.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I'm speaking on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Langley. I'm sure that if there's a point of order to be raised, the Liberal party can defend themselves. They don't need that help, do they, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order made by the Hon. Member for Langley is well taken. I have accepted the withdrawal of the Member for Shuswap, and I would recognize again the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: With so many points of order it is difficult to get the point across here, by golly! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would also point out to the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey that he is opening up an issue again and re-canvassing an issue which was dealt with at length previously.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! And when he's making his request to the Attorney-General, and he's raising new information, that he deal with it briefly, as I asked.

MR. GARDOM: In the six years that I have been a Member, this is the first time I have ever been accused of misleading the House. The Hon. Member suggests that I am misleading the House because I've not read the whole letter, so Mr. Chairman, I shall read the whole letter — which I am more than delighted to do.

More than likely you would have ruled me out of order if I had attempted to do that.

I'll start at the beginning....  "For the information of Mr. Lewis, MLA," the Member for Shuswap who is just accusing me of misleading. Then we find the seal: Minister of Agriculture, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, Aug. 14, 1973:

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

"Dear Mr. Janzen.

"In anticipation of your board meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 16, I felt I should clarify my position with respect to arranging for additional egg production in the Interior and Vancouver Island areas of the province,

"We have previously agreed that the government would finance the purchase of

[ Page 1227 ]

quota in the Lower Fraser Valley at the rate of $300 per case, and that this quota would be used to issue special permits, as recommended by a producer committee. It is my understanding that this committee has made recommendations to the board, and I would appreciate it if these recommendations could be approved promptly. It is my understanding also that the effective date of these special permits will be June 1, 1973."

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, indeed. Retroactive — as my colleague from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) mentions.

"Holders of the special permits will pay interest to the government at the rate of 6 per cent of $300 per case annually for a period of five years. These special permits may be converted to quota at any time, upon payment of $300 per case up to the end of the fifth year of payment. Subsequent to that date the price per case of quota shall reduce at the rate of $30 per year until the cost is reduced to zero. At that time the government will write off the advance. A further condition of the special permits is that they will not be separable from the production units.

"As I re-read the Kovachich agreement as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others...."

Is that clear enough to the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), or would you like me to read that again? "As I re-read the Kovachich agreement as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others..." Is that clear to you, Mr. Member?

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

MR. GARDOM: "...the latter was to have additional ordinary permits issued so that he would qualify for a total of 200 cases of production per week."

As I said, it is my understanding that Mr. Kovachich had 80 cases, and this was giving him another 120 to bring him up to 200 cases. So, by multiplying the 120 extra cases, which surely, Mr. Member, is the result of the agreement as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others.... Your Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is an honourable man and this is what he says. They are all honourable men.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Carrying on with the letter, Mr. Chairman — in fact I'll read this again. I want this paragraph to be in its totality:

"As I re-read the Kovachich agreement as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others, the latter was to....

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

MR. GARDOM: The Premier has denied it but the Minister of Agriculture has affirmed it. That's the whole point.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Now that their notes are considered. (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

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

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

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

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

MR. McGEER: Away you go!

MR. GARDOM: Well, who is false, Mr. Attorney-General? Is it the Minister of Agriculture or your Premier? — because you've got to make the choice as the chief law enforcement officer of the Province of British Columbia, and you have to order a full public inquiry by an independent commission to get to the very bottom of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is allowing the Hon. Member to read this letter because it is new information, but I would ask him to keep his remarks brief because the whole subject has been very thoroughly canvassed previous to this.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it hasn't. I came up with it last night and I was ruled out by the clock.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, while we were debating the Attorney-General's estimates last night, two Ministers of the Crown were releasing the letter to the press, and you're trying to tell us that it is old material? Even your own Ministers have introduced new evidence which we must discuss in the

[ Page 1228 ]

Attorney-General's estimates, because they are completely condemning to the Premier of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point is: the Hon. Members have requested an inquiry by the Attorney-General, as part of his administrative responsibility. Any information which is pertinent to this request we are allowing to be presented. However, there is no point in discussing the subject at length again in general terms. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MR. GARDOM: I rather wish my colleagues would stop having secret meetings with me in the House. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) state his point of order?

MR. McCLELLAND: My point, Mr. Chairman, is: we had to canvass another subject over and over and over again and we finally got an inquiry there. All we're trying to do in this instance is the same thing. We hope that the Attorney-General might see the light again and give us an inquiry in this instance as well, on the basis of new evidence.

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

MR. GARDOM: The unfortunate conundrum, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we have one cabinet Minister affirming, and one Premier denying. And that is a very unfortunate position to put all the Members in, including myself and yourself, Mr. Chairman. That's why I indeed request your indulgence to, perhaps, carry on with the reading of the letter in its totality.

"As I re-read the Kovachich agreement as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich, in the presence of others" — who were they? — "the latter was to have additional ordinary permits issued so that he would qualify for a total of 200 cases of production per week. It is my feeling that the board should recognize this situation by allotting this to Mr. Kovachich."

That's the end of that paragraph, and the Minister of Agriculture said that it is his feeling that the board should recognize this situation by allotting this permit and this 200 cases of production to Mr. Kovachich as a result of the agreement made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich.

It seems awfully clear to me that there was an agreement between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich. Would anyone in here be prepared to put up their hand and say that's not the case? I don't see one hand. What about the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) who's been making so much noise? Just one hand, who would say in here that there wasn't an agreement between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich? Not one single solitary Member of the government. Not one. One hand — Shuswap. Only Shuswap says there was no agreement. So you're saying that the Minister of Agriculture is not telling the truth in this letter. You had better stand here and explain your actions to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Member. Carrying on with the letter.

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

"I am arranging for the Department of Finance to provide a special warrant in the amount of $50,000 as initial payment on the quota that has already been arranged for by the Egg Marketing Board. Further government advances will be made as my department recommends."

I'm not suggesting that the $50,000 special warrant was all for the purposes of Mr. Kovachich, because by virtue of using the arithmetic that is limited to me, in my understanding of the matter, $36,000 of the $50,000 was the special warrant for the special purposes of Mr. Kovachich, by virtue of Mr. Kovachich having an agreement with the Premier of the Province of B.C. Pretty nice deal. Carrying on with the quotation, Mr. Chairman:

"It was my intention not to make funds available for quota purchase until the board had agreed that B.C. would be a fully participating member of the national egg agency."

That was the intention of the Minister of Agriculture; it seems to be a very different intention from that of the Premier. I wonder why.

"I am not proceeding with the above arrangement to facilitate settlement of the internal problem relating to Interior production."

It must read "now," I would assume. Has anybody got a better copy? I don't wish to be incorrect. I would assume it would read "now".

"I am now proceeding with the above arrangement to facilitate settlement of the internal problem relating to Interior production. Following upon this, it is my intention to move at the earliest possible date to bring British Columbia into the national marketing plan.

"Yours very truly,

"David D. Stupich, Minister of Agriculture."

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: This is a revelation, Mr. Chairman. One always likes to rely in a court of law on the best evidence rule, so I think it would be most

[ Page 1229 ]

appropriate if the original of the letter was filed by the government, because it would appear to be in their possession, or at least the ribbon copy which they would have. Now this is apart from the very serious and obvious matters that were raised in here of blatant contradiction between the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture, upon the very obvious inference that Mr. Kovachich received special treatment.

There is something else. This letter was revealed yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) with or without the knowledge of the Premier — I don't know. But they made a selective judgment. They felt that the opposition might be getting hold of the letter, or receiving general information about it, and they wanted to — what was their expression? I forget what it was — head it off at the pass or something like that.

Mr. Chairman, what else is under the rug? Where are the rest of the letters? Is it an unfair request to make to the Hon. Attorney-General to file the complete file dealing with Mr. Kovachich before the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the Hon. Member is requesting that this correspondence be filed, the proper procedure would be to put a motion on the order paper. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: That has proven to be not the most effective process for the opposition, as Mr. Chairman well knows, so I tend to hope that maybe this quiet little suggestion will find its way into the ear of the Attorney-General, the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture, the Provincial Secretary, and all the Members of the New Democratic Party who like to have the "Sunshine Law" effected and carried on in the Province of British Columbia. Let there be some sunshine brought into this.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a capricious matter. This is a very serious matter. We've had one inquiry ordered earlier today as the result of extremely relentless and hard work on the part of some opposition Members. There's even a more dramatic need for this because it affects the good order of government. There is blatant conflict in written form between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance. There's blatant conflict between the sworn testimony of citizens of this province and the Premier. The Premier's in conflict with his Minister of Agriculture; the Premier's in conflict with the citizens of B.C. That is not the way to run the province. That is not the way to operate or function in a democratic society.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Liberal leader last night, and the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) brought forward evidence of the gravest kind before the Attorney-General. It relates less, Mr. Chairman, to the dealings behind closed doors with Mr. Kovachich than to the performance of the Ministers themselves in this House. Mr. Chairman, we questioned the Minister of Agriculture during his estimates regarding the agreements between Mr. Kovachich and the government. The Minister of Agriculture told us he couldn't remember what went on at those meetings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The request has been made, as I said, repeatedly asking the Attorney-General for an inquiry as part of his administrative responsibilities. Some further information was presented why this shouldn't be done. However, I would state as a ruling of the Chair that we should not debate the matter here at length again, but rather that if you have further information to present as to why the Attorney-General should pursue an inquiry, then you should state the information; otherwise we should not enter into a full debate on the whole issue.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, during the whole time in which this particular letter was being read to the House, the Attorney-General was absent and didn't have an opportunity to hear it. Furthermore, the Attorney-General last night was in the House at the time the Minister of Agriculture and the Provincial Secretary released a letter to the press. He didn't have the benefit of direct knowledge of what went on at that press conference.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment, please? I would like to point out to the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that if the thrust of the debate or the comments of the Hon. Members is to question the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture, or the Premier, or any other Member of this House, it can't be done here. The authority is the 18th edition of May, page 361. I will just read the section in question:

"Matters to be dealt with by substantive motions.

"Certain matters cannot be debated, save upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. Among these are the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne or other members of the Royal Family, the Governors-General of the independent territories, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, Members of either House of Parliament," et cetera.

It would appear that the direction or the thrust in which the remarks are proceeding is one questioning the conduct, or possible conduct, of the Minister of Agriculture or the Premier.

[ Page 1230 ]

Inasmuch as the request has been made repeatedly by Members of the opposition asking the Attorney-General to conduct an inquiry, I don't think the request needs to be repeated again. New information has been introduced why this request has been made, and I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibility of the Minister whose estimates we are now considering; otherwise he should put a substantive motion on the order paper.

MR. McGEER: Precisely, Mr. Chairman. I absolutely agree with what you said there. Of course, you have brought this matter of what is on page 361 of the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May in which he says that you cannot deal with the conduct of the sovereign, the heirs to the throne, other members of the Royal Family, the Governors-General of the independent territories, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means. Mr. Chairman, I'm not reflecting on any of those; I'm merely discussing the administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General — the ways in which he and only he, can take initiative in order to correct the situation. Before he understands what his duties should be, it's necessary for us, Mr. Chairman, to present him with the irrefutable evidence upon which he must decide in his administrative capacity to act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: It has been difficult for us, Mr. Chairman, because of you, to present that order to the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just make the distinction. The request for an inquiry is quite proper under the estimates as part of his administrative responsibility and the reasons for this. However, if you continue at length to present the facts, or to discuss the facts, or consider the facts, it becomes a debate itself on the conduct of the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture. Therefore I would rule any further comments on the facts out of order.

MR. McGEER: We're going to be prevented in this debate, Mr. Chairman, to say why the Attorney-General should order a judicial inquiry. Are you listening to him or are you listening to other advice? We can have a recess of the House while you get coached.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The issue is perfectly clear to the Chair; we are considering the administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're asking the Hon. Members of the House while we're in committee considering these estimates to confine their questions and comments to his administrative responsibilities.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: But you don't agree with me that the Attorney-General is failing. And I'm trying to tell you why he's failing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The request has been made repeatedly asking the Hon. Attorney-General to make an inquiry because of certain facts that have been alleged or introduced. If there are new facts that the Hon. Member wishes to present, he may do so. However, I have ruled that you may not debate these facts or ponder upon these facts or consider them. Otherwise it becomes a debate which is contrary to the rules of the House.

MR. McGEER: You're acknowledging, Mr. Chairman, I take it, that what has been presented by the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is a fact. That has been disputed, may we say, by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). Either item put forward in the Minister of Agriculture's letter....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order. That is precisely why I'm making the ruling: because we will get into a full-fledged debate on the conduct of the Ministers in question. This is exactly what we don't want to do.

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

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

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! I would rule again that this is not the place to have this debate. The place to have such a debate would be on a substantive motion questioning the conduct of these Ministers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We would never get a substantive motion. You know how this place is run.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is not responsible for that; the Chairman is responsible to enforce the rules in committee. And I will so order it.

[ Page 1231 ]

MR. McGEER: You're making the rules up as you go along, Mr. Chairman. What should happen, if I may just make a point to you, sir, if we were to pass the Attorney-General's estimates before he ordered a public inquiry? Then we find on substantive motion that the evidence we presented, that he really should have a judicial inquiry, was correct and that he had mistakenly accepted the word of the Member for Shuswap and felt a judicial inquiry was unnecessary? You see, we've got conflict of interest.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. D.D. Stupich) told us he forgot. Then he calls a press conference outside this House last night and admits that he had an agreement and that he'd reread it. Quite clearly the Minister of Agriculture was not giving us the facts.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point I've made is that the responsibility of the Minister whose estimates we are now considering is possibly to consider an inquiry. That request has been made repeatedly. I don't think it needs to be made again. If there are new facts to present as to why this should be done, then I'm holding that you can present these new facts. If you have no new facts, the Chair cannot entertain any debate on the facts that have been presented.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, of course, we want to hear from the Attorney- General, which we've not had the opportunity to do, regarding his attitude towards these new facts which have been presented. So far the Attorney-General has either left the room or just remained mute; he's lost his tongue.

While I'm on my feet right now — and we will want to respond to whatever the Attorney-General has to say — may I ask the Attorney-General also to respond to the questions we raised regarding the X-Kalay foundation, which is another aspect of his responsibility as Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to look at that if there's been default in filing. Mind you, that does apply unfortunately to many companies and many societies. We don't have a computer that picks these things up as quickly as we would like. That's one of the things we're talking about in terms of re-organization of the administration of justice and particularly the financial services. We're also looking in terms of a new Societies Act, although I don't think we'll reach it as this session.

I think the Saltspring property was rented by X-Kalay, not purchased. But nevertheless if there's default in filing, that's something we'll look at. I appreciate the matter being brought to my attention.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up on what the Attorney-General has had to say for a moment. When the provincial government made moneys available to the X-Kalay foundation — and it's in a completely different category when the provincial government is sending funds into an organization — it was on the condition that a business manager be appointed and that the affairs of that society be placed in the hands of certain directors. I think that was a responsible move on the part of the government.

The problem is that the business manager suddenly disappeared and a new business manager was appointed who was the wife of the director. Some of the key directors of that foundation resigned. That didn't happen yesterday; that happened quite some time ago. That should be a warning to the government and to the Attorney-General's department. It's all very well for the Attorney-General to say,"Look, we don't have a computer here with which we can pick up things that would ordinarily not be within our notice." But, Mr. Chairman, for heaven's sakes, it was right under the government's nose. They should have been quite able to sniff something like this out. I hope the government's going to take vigorous action.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I have to support this call for an inquiry. I would like to encourage the Attorney-General to call for this inquiry because there's new evidence. Are you ready, Mr. Chairman? The paragraph to which the Hon. Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has referred gives us the evidence. The Minister of Agriculture clearly suggests that an agreement exists. The Premier of the province stands in his place yesterday and categorically — that's his word — denies that an agreement exists. There is a conflict, blatant conflict, which the Attorney-General has the responsibility to resolve.

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

MR. SCHROEDER: Just a minute, now, just a minute. It says here in this paragraph: "As I re-read the Kovachich agreement as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich" — and here's the evidence — "in the presence of others...." I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the only way we will know whether an agreement exists or does not exist is if we have the power to call for these other persons and papers. The only way we can get these powers is to call for a judicial inquiry, have a group sit together, call for these persons and papers, and find out whether or not this agreement really did exist. I

[ Page 1232 ]

would suggest to the Attorney-General that he do this forthwith.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the cry has repeatedly gone out that if we put forward new evidence the subject can continue. Right? You've made that statement yourself.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the evidence is new and if it's a request to the Attorney-General for an inquiry and this is....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Very good, Mr. Chairman. Let me put forward some new evidence, unknown to this House; at least, not officially known to this House. A number of things.

First, none of us here were present at the press conference, except of course the Minister of Agriculture and the Hon. Provincial Secretary. They were present but none of the rest of us were. So let's have the information from the press conference. The only way we can get that is from the press stories.

Let me read into the record this new evidence which we did not have in this House, which did not come when the Minister of Agriculture who had these facts in his possession was discussing his estimates, or the Premier when he had the facts in possession was discussing his estimates. Let's look at what they did afterwards, after their votes had passed, now that they've got the Attorney-General on the fire. Let's look at the quotes from that press conference:

"Hall and Stupich released the letter at a news conference called, they said, to head off a predicted attack by opposition parties." Clear motive.

"Hall said opposition Members have been filibustering the spending estimates of Attorney-General Alex Macdonald until they could obtain the letter and use it as ammunition against the government."

These are things that have never been mentioned; these quotes have never been brought forward in this House. Get the next one:

"'Rather than wait around for the bomb to drop,' Hall said, the government decided to take the offensive and release the letter."

They know so well there's a bomb and that this letter is the bomb, and that this letter shows clearly that we have not had a full accounting from either of the two previous Ministers and, furthermore, that Minister sitting there, the Attorney-General, should be doing something about it, not protecting his brother Ministers.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would make the point that in your last remark you did, in fact question the conduct of a Minister. This is precisely what I've ruled against. If you present the evidence without comment, then we'll accept it. Otherwise, no.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I won't question the motives of the Ministers for having a press conference late at night when their own estimates have passed and those of the Attorney-General are on the floor, after running us through the supper hour in the hope that they could wear us down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member proceed with his new evidence?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

"Stupich called a news conference with Hall as the House ground through the normal supper break, and said the agreement referred to in his letter was an entirely different matter from the question of reducing levies, and occurred months afterward."

The only trouble with that statement is that it's directly contrary to what Sy Kovachich himself said in Prince George — directly contrary. Let me read that: "March 9. No Political Favours Says Eggman" is the headline.

"Kovachich said the only meeting where his personal dispute with the board was discussed was near the end of October, 1972, in Victoria. Barrett is alleged to have threatened the egg board during the meeting on October 27, 1972."

Yet now, despite that statement by Kovachich that that was the only meeting, we have the claim by Ministers that "Oh, no, there was a meeting months later, something else; this didn't refer to the original meeting at all." Well, if it didn't, if we accept their word, Mr. Chairman, there have been two cases of undue influence: one in the case of the $13,800 reduction, the other in the case referred to in this letter.

There have been cases, not one, and that's new information, I believe — new information based on what the Minister of Agriculture, now in the room, said yesterday outside this House at a press conference.

Stupich said of the letter,"I don't feel it's damaging or significant enough to delay the work of the House." My mind can hardly grasp how he can make such a statement, such a patently absurd statement. He goes on to say,"I deny that there ever was a detailed agreement reached in the Premier's

[ Page 1233 ]

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

There is the weasel word put into that press conference by the Minister of Agriculture, a weasel word: "detailed." You know, maybe there's some little detail added by the lawyers — perhaps a few words like "or similar words to the same effect" — you know, a little addition by the lawyers.

And here is the Minister of Agriculture, if this bomb blows up in the face of the Premier, able to say,"Oh, it wasn't the detailed agreement; it was just 99.99 per cent of the agreement that happened before." And the extra tenth of one per cent, of course, was the addition of the lawyers when they drew up the formal wording of an agreement which he himself, the Minister of Agriculture, agreed had taken place when he signed that letter dated August 14, 1973.

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

"He said he was giving his explanation of the letter's meaning before it came up in the House from the opposition to stress that it has nothing to do with the earlier meeting on financial levies — a clear attempt, as he said earlier, to head off a predicted attack by opposition parties."

That was my first quote from that news conference as reported by the Vancouver Sun in this morning's paper.

That is new information for the House to ponder upon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The information that the Hon. Member is presenting is to the Attorney-General as to the reasons why an inquiry should be made. I would ask you to speak to that point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure you would because you've been fair in this. It's new information, not previously mentioned in the House, just like the letter, which I attempted to read last night and was only just getting into before the 11 o'clock time came and I was cut off by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). At that stage, Mr. Chairman, we didn't have a chance to discuss this.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We didn't have a chance to discuss this. It's been raised again this morning, and again we've spent very, very little time in this House on the letter, the letter which was read into the record today by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), the letter of August 14 from the Minister of Agriculture, David D. Stupich, to Mr. W. Janzen, Chairman of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had statements by the Premier towards the end of the day to the effect that the agreement was set up by the lawyers. Well, sure, it was put in words by the lawyers, it was put down. The agreement was actually formalized by the lawyers, but formalizing agreement that has already been reached is an obvious job of lawyers, and one the Attorney-General well knows takes place day after day after day.

The Premier went on to say: "There is no written agreement between Mr. Kovachich and I. I state that categorically." What does he mean by that — that he didn't sign an agreement? Does he mean that? Or does he simply mean that he hadn't seen a written agreement, that he hasn't seen what the legal draftsman did to the verbal, oral and binding agreement, as far as Kovachich was concerned, between himself and the Premier of the Province of British Columbia.

I don't understand why the Attorney-General sits here in the face of evidence of undue influence, in the face of evidence, consistent evidence, that there has been influence used in the Egg Marketing Board, pressure used upon them, and pretend somehow that he has been right up on his duties and has not failed in any way. He has failed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is straying away from the point that I asked him to stay to, which was to present the evidence and not to get into a debate on the facts that he's presenting.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we wouldn't want to use the House for debate. I would like now to quote from another document not yet referred to, I believe. It's a memorandum to Members of the British Columbia Legislature from members of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board, dated January 31 of this year. First paragraph:

"This memo is concerned with the contents of recent public statements made by Mr. Hartley Dent, MLA, Mr. Alf Nunweiler, MLA, and Mr. Doug Kelly, MLA, regarding the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board." It goes on to say in the second paragraph:

"The British Columbia Egg Marketing Board have striven to implement the main guidelines set for the board by the Hon. Dave Stupich."

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

"Mr. Kovachich is assured of increasing to the maximum of 6,000 dozen through the agreement between him and the board, drawn on the instructions of the Hon. Premier, Dave Barrett. "

New information. Interesting information. All this information is available to the Attorney-General. He

[ Page 1234 ]

knows this stuff.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He knows this material. He also knows, Mr. Chairman, what I know as well and what other Members of this Legislature know; the gossip of the corridors has it that just as soon as these estimates are passed, they're going to release the lawyers' agreements. That's been stated.

We've asked for them time after time, and yet in the corridors the press expect another press conference, just like last night, when we had been cut off our right to debate because of either exhaustion, fatigue, starvation or whatever it might be. Now, Mr. Chairman, I put forward a lot of new information and it's all to this effect: the whole case of Sy Kovachich stinks. It stinks to high heaven.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member is now beginning to possibly question the conduct of the Ministers in question, and that can only be done on a substantive motion. The evidence has been presented. If he wishes to present new facts without comment....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the questioning I am doing is of the administration of the Department of the Attorney-General in the last year-and-a-half, in particular in the last three months. That's the question. Has the Attorney-General been fulfilling his duties properly or has he not? Why in the face of evidence that keeps dribbling in day after day...? It's a sieve; they try hard to hold back but they can't. It keeps leaking out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Really, honestly!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What did your colleague the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) do last night, Mr. Attorney-General, if that's not being....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to address the Chair. If he has nothing further to offer in the way of information....

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Have you nothing to offer to the people of this province beyond this kind of stuff?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Attorney-General, I would think that the people of this province would expect that your government would be beyond the kind of stuff that's been going on in the last few months.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again the Hon. Member is drifting into the consideration of the conduct of a Member.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Very good, Mr. Chairman, I'll address the chair. If the Attorney-General will be quiet and not throw comments about expectations, we can get on.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this case is of importance. The fact is that the Attorney-General of British Columbia has an independent duty, quite independent of his fellow cabinet Ministers.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. You are asking for an inquiry. That's a matter for cabinet, if you read the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated while the point of order is made, please?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The other point of order I have is that if you have got a complaint about the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture or myself, or any other Member of this House, you know very well your remedy. It's to take your courage in your hands and to file a substantive motion.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! I would comment on the point of order, rule on the point of order. There were two matters: one is the conduct of the Member which should be handled by a substantive motion; the other one is that this is not directly the administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General. Also, under standing order 43, this matter has now been canvassed thoroughly.

The request has been made repeatedly; therefore I would rule any further discussion on this matter out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I might refer to chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia. It's called the Attorney-General Act. First paragraph says:

"The Act may be cited....

[ Page 1235 ]

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm referring directly to the comments made earlier by the Attorney-General on that point of order.

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

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

 "The duties and powers of the Attorney-General are as follows: he is the official legal adviser of the Lieutenant-Governor and the legal Member of the executive council; he shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law."

Do you understand the importance of that, Mr. Attorney-General? Perhaps that's another of the Acts that you haven't read.

You are charged independently, by statute passed by the Legislature, the people's representatives, to make sure that the laws are obeyed. You have affidavits. You have evidence. Information. Charges by the opposition.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know.

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

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know. Everybody knows you've called the Premier a liar five or six times. Now go ahead. Go out in the corridor and keep up that conduct if you want to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please! The point of order is well taken in this respect that he is drawing the attention of the House to the administrative abilities of the Attorney-General. However, I have ruled that any further request to the Attorney-General it is now out of order inasmuch as it has been thoroughly canvassed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General indicated earlier — and this is the point of order; this is why we moved from the original debate, and why I rose on the point of order — that somehow or another any inquiry would have to be done by the whole Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the whole cabinet. He hung his hat on the Inquiries Act. He pretended that he didn't have any independent responsibility, that he was just a minister like the others. My point of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The point I am making is: I am not questioning the Hon. Member's point that there is an administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General, according to my understanding of what he said. However, what I am ruling is that the request to the Attorney-General has now been made repeatedly over a period of time and that information has been given why this should be done. I am now ruling that we should not pursue the matter any further under standing order 43.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, you were anticipating. I was asked by you to stay on a point of order. I was trying desperately to, and now you have jumped ahead to something else.

I'm still on the point of order raised by the Attorney-General which was that he didn't have an independent responsibility because somehow or another it was the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That is the point of order raised by the Attorney-General, and on which you ask me correctly, Mr. Chairman, to restrict myself to, and that is what I am trying to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Please do not ask me now to go into my previous debate because you are telling me I can't do it. I'll stick on the point of order with your permission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Member rose on a point of order and I have ruled, as the Chairman, that it would appear that the point of order is well taken: that the Attorney-General, in fact, does have administrative responsibility. However, I have also ruled that the Hon. Member should not pursue the matter any further because it has already been pursued repeatedly. I have allowed new information to be presented. The information has apparently now been presented and therefore I would rule any further discussion of this matter out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will certainly abide by your ruling, as I appreciate the fact that you realized it was a point of order that I was on my feet to discuss — the point of order so forgotten by the Attorney- General when he pretended his duties did not include the administration of public affairs....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed to another matter please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would request the Attorney-General at this stage to use his good offices to make sure....

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

[ Page 1236 ]

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was going to request him to use his good offices, use his powers of persuasion, use his eloquence to persuade the members of the cabinet, who have in their possession the legal documents that we requested yesterday, to make them available before the end of this debate because the type of activity that your cabinet is carrying on is not such that we in the opposition can agree with or have confidence in you when this type of thing happens.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. I yield to the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Dealing with the administrative duties of the Attorney-General and, as my colleague who just sat down did, referring to the Attorney-General Act, it says that "he," referring to the Attorney-General, is the official adviser of the Lieutenant-Governor and the legal member of the Executive Council. So, Mr. Attorney-General, in your capacity as legal adviser, and having taken the point that it is up the Lieutenant-Governor to order a public inquiry, will you, as legal adviser to the Lieutenant-Governor, recommend such a public inquiry?

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has made a ruling that the subject has now been thoroughly canvassed and therefore under standing order 43....

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The request has been made repeatedly that the Attorney-General act in this matter. New evidence was introduced and I could ask the Hon. Member.... I have made the point that the subject has now been thoroughly canvassed and therefore I would ask him to go on to another subject.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, you have made an exceptionally intelligent ruling and I concur with it. You're asking for new evidence; we are asking for all of the evidence. That is what this Legislative Assembly has not received.

Mr. Chairman, I have some new evidence that I just received on the telephone about 10 minutes ago dealing with this topic. That new enough for you?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm not questioning the Hon. Member's intentions. I am simply making the point that the subject has now been thoroughly canvassed. The request....

MR. GARDOM: This subject has never been canvassed before!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The request has been made to the Attorney-General repeatedly, therefore I would rule that any further discussion is out of order.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point, necessarily, in presenting new evidence at this time.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, you've turned 180 degrees and in under two minutes! You said if there's new evidence, let's hear it. And you are going to hear it or you'll throw me out of this chamber! I received this over the telephone 10 minutes ago!

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

MR. GARDOM: Violations of the laws of the Province of British Columbia. I'll read you the Attorney- General Act: "He has the regulation and conduct of all litigation for or against the Crown, or of any public department in respect of any subject within the authority of jurisdiction of the Legislature." And that enfolds this man's responsibilities to enforce the provisions of the B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act and regulations issued there under.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member will allow me permission to speak for a moment, I will say that if the information is totally new, is not something that has been brought in before and is germane to the point of asking the Attorney-General to conduct an inquiry, then I would ask him to take his place again.

[ Page 1237 ]

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, laws have got to be clear; they've got to be concise. They have got to be certain. They have to be capable of being enforced. It is the responsibility, in not only this democratic society but in any democratic society, of the chief law enforcement officer to see that the law of any particular jurisdiction, which would be his jurisdiction, would be followed. That's a simple point: to see that in B.C. we live by the rule of law.

We don't live by the rule of kicks or of vituperation, but by the rule of law, and that's the only standard. The Attorney-General was talking about standards; that is the only standard the people of B.C. wish to live by. Without that, Mr. Chairman, there is no certainty and we may as well just return to primitive strength.

About 10 minutes ago, I received a telephone call from a gentleman by the name of Glen Redline. He is an egg producer in Delta. He has licence number 486. He owes the Egg Marketing Board $1,999.71. He has not paid his monthly dues, I gather, for the better part of the year and he says he will not pay until he sees producers in the Province of British Columbia treated equally. He is supposed to pay monthly and he says he won't pay by virtue of the Kovachich incident because producers in the Province of B.C. have not been treated equally. This is what he says.

He says that this was discussed at open meetings of the B.C. Egg Producers' Association, and as short a time ago as one month back, he had 100 per cent support from the directors of the B.C. Egg Producers' Association of the step that he is taking. His licence is supposed to be renewed by the end of February. So far, it has not been. So far, he is still earning his livelihood and, God willing, he will be able to continue to do that by producing eggs.

Here is a man who is saying that he wants the same kind of treatment; he wants one rule of law for everybody in the Province of B.C. It is the responsibility of the Attorney-General, according to the statute — unless he is going to amend it this session — to have the conduct and regulation of all litigation for or against the Crown or any public departments. This is within his control.

Mr. Chairman, the sad thing that is happening here is that the framework of society is crumbling because the government is not following the law. If it will follow the law, you won't run into these kinds of situations as developed by Mr. Glen Redline. All he is asking is that there be one law: One for him; one for you; one for me, and the same law for the friends of the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 11 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, you cannot, at this stage, call a vote on this vote 11. There is simply no way that we can tolerate the failure of the Attorney-General to carry out the duties in accordance with chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia. There is no way that you can ask us to pass this vote.

The subject is one of acute importance. The Attorney-General .... I read out quotes from him yesterday about the need for total....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I did indicate to the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that he could speak providing he presented new evidence, which he did. However, I have also ruled, under standing order 43, that since the request has been made repeatedly to the Attorney-General for an inquiry, this should not be done again.

Any further request of this nature is out or order, or any arguments why this should be done is out of order. If there is new information then the Chair will allow the Member to proceed. However, if he has nothing definite and new to contribute, then I would rule any further discussion out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I regret that decision. The reason I regret it, of course, is that your own name occurred on the heading in the first paragraph of the Egg Marketing Board memorandum which I read in as new evidence. Apparently there is a conflict of interest here and I would request, Mr. Chairman, with respect, that you leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that while my name was mentioned in some obscure way, or came in in some way, there seems to be some doubt in his mind, and perhaps in other Members' minds. Therefore I might be prejudiced in terms of the way I would rule from the chair. Therefore, I would respect the Hon. Member's sensitivities and I will get a substitute to take my place during the rest of this debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that you've accepted that suggestion, and I appreciate the fact that I believe you have today tried very hard to be fair in this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have sent for the Deputy Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Try a new one for a change, for variety. How about D'Arcy? He hasn't said much recently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Until such time as the Deputy Chairman returns I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River to take the chair.

[Mr. Chabot in the chair.]

[ Page 1238 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, back to the serious question. On February 25 of this year the Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia made the following statement in this Legislature.

"I would hope, too, Mr. Speaker, if I could change the subject for a minute, that the Legislature would address itself to the question of honesty in government. We've heard some of the people, more in the municipalities than anywhere else, say that they would rather quit than have a disclosure bill in respect to their assets. But really, Mr. Speaker, I think this matter we're dealing with is of real substance. I don't think we can afford as legislators or as municipal councilors to have even the suspicion of government by influence peddling."

Words of the Attorney-General of British Columbia — "I don't think we can afford as legislators or as municipal councilors to have even the suspicion of government by influence peddling" — or government by crony.

"I think even the MLAs that are here today must agree that they have to be, like Calpurnia, above suspicion."

The actual quote, Mr. Chairman, is "about" suspicion, but "above" suspicion is the word which presumably the Attorney-General meant.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

"We had the inquiry into Surrey a short while ago, and the commissioner, Donald White, had this to say: '...the necessity for complete disclosure and candidness at all times where one conducts even private business in the open. When such a person is a public official, then suspicions are allayed "

"I say it's in the interest of us as legislators and it's in the interest of the municipal councilors that their assets should be out in the open and know so that there will be full disclosure by the public.' "

It was a good statement and I'm glad the Attorney-General likes hearing it again, because it's absolutely the crux of our present problems, Mr. Chairman. The question is that even a suspicion of government by influence peddling, or government by crony, must be rejected.

He's made it perfectly clear. We've had far more than suspicions; we've had affidavits, and we've had letters signed by cabinet Ministers. We've had statements by the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture, and now the Attorney-General. We've had statements by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). There is far more than a suspicion. There is a prima facie case and under chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia this case, this prima facie case, means that there is an obligation on the Attorney-General to act.

The Attorney-General didn't like it yesterday when I referred to the Sommers case. I am going to refer to it again in this context....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I thought that was a low blow.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You thought it was a low blow.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and I still do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And he still does. Any further comment you'd like me to read in the record for you, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That expresses my opinion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But the issue I raised yesterday was not the guilt or otherwise of Mr. Sommers. It was not the impropriety or otherwise of the Department of Lands and Forests and the companies involved. It was not that at all. The issue I raised was strictly that of the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia, rejecting all reasonable requests from Hon. Members of the opposition such as Webster, Gibson, Gargrave, Gregory, Brown — even Strachan.

These men consistently, and I think honourably, raised issues of importance which should have been looked into. At that time they had no knowledge of the outcome of any lawsuit. They had no knowledge of certainty or otherwise of guilt. But they did know that there was a prima facie case and that the Attorney-General had a responsibility.

Every one of the quotes I gave you yesterday, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, was related only to the conduct of the Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia — Mr. Robert Bonner in those days — where I feel he was derelict in his duty. I feel it because, as I said, I quoted from Members who I believe to be honourable men. They made statements of general principle, general principle which applies much in this case as in that. The tables have changed. The roles are reversed. The opposition is now the government. But surely the standards of the old CCF have not been totally forgotten by the new NDP. Surely the fact that there was a name change — one of those unity party efforts of the '60s — surely the efforts there....

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): On a point of order. My name has been mentioned relating to a debate that took

[ Page 1239 ]

place in this house some 18 years ago. I was present. Let me point out to that Member that what he is discussing has been thoroughly canvassed for two weeks in this House. A ruling has already been made that it cannot be canvassed again.

But for the benefit of the Member who is speaking, I want to inform him that there is absolutely no comparison in any way, shape or form of what we canvassed 18 years ago and that which you are attempting to canvass today. Absolutely no comparison whatsoever. I think it is a reflection on this House when that Member carries on this way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's really a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The point of order is that it has already been canvassed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to raise that point with the Member: the debate is out of order on the basis of rule 43, of which you are well aware.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we've raised new information today. Much of it we've requested, that once again we are not put in that foolish and, I think, degrading position of having press conferences late at night or after the House has finished sitting — things of that nature — when we are trying to discuss the people's business in the forum which our forebears established for that very purpose, namely the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia.

It is simple for people to say that there is a great, great difference; but I ask them to go back, as I have done, and read the two years of debates on the issue that eventually led to the Sommers conviction.

It is fine for the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to get up and say that we've discussed this for two weeks. We discussed the other thing for two years. An election took place, a by-election took place in the interim.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But there is no relation between the two.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is no relation between the two?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, come on, Mr. Minister of Transport and Communications.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a dirty, rotten smear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! If you are canvassing the conduct of another Minister, you cannot do it under this vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if he gets heard on a point of order, I can at least reply, surely. Insults from his chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're dealing with the Attorney-General's estimates. That's what you should be dealing with.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you were out of the room at the time. I can re-read you the sections of chapter 21 dealing with his responsibilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm being well-advised here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry it took you so long, then, to get to the chamber.

The fact is that the issue with respect to the Attorney-General was identical in the case of Robert Bonner and in the case of Alex Macdonald.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't mind the casual things; but, really, to bring in the Sommers thing here....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just be quiet for a minute. I'm talking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: At long last!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And to bring in the Sommers thing, where there was a criminal charge under the Criminal Code of Canada, and compare it with this debate where no criminal charge has been stated, no accused has been stated, no suggestion that there is anything under the Criminal Code of Canada.... There's a suggestion that this agreement made with lawyers was illegal. Okay, that's fine to canvass that. But to compare that with the Sommers case is the most unworthy kind of debate that is possible to take place in any legislature in the world. They are totally dissimilar.

I have to agree, even though the word is a strong one, that this is a smear of the worst kind and that you, Hon. Member, are engaging in gutter mud-slinging. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He's attempting to cloud the fact that I'm referring to the conduct of Robert Bonner, Attorney-General for the Province of British Columbia, who afterwards continued to remain in that office, who afterwards continued to sit in this Legislature, and who afterwards took responsible

[ Page 1240 ]

positions outside the public life of this province. I'm comparing his conduct with yours. That is the issue. He didn't have these inquiries; he was presented with affidavits....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Go ahead. Carry right on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He had prima facie evidence....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As long as we know what we're talking about and what you're doing, you carry right on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I certainly will carry right on.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know what you're doing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if you know, perhaps you can get up and say.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. DENT: Mr. Chairman, as the Member for Skeena I relinquished the chair in order that there can be the absolute amount of fairness in terms of the way the rules are being followed in the House. I would also ask that this fairness be applied to the other Members of the House as well. I think the Hon. Member is out of order in that this is, first of all, a subject that has been thoroughly canvassed and, secondly he is bringing in the discussion of the conduct of other Ministers in the House, which is clearly out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point is well taken and I'll guard carefully what the Member says.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I would like to point out again that, despite the efforts of two Ministers of the Crown now to switch the discussion of the issue from one Robert Bonner, a former Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia, to one Robert Sommers, a former Minister of Lands and Forests, the issue is still that of Robert Bonner. The issue is still that the comparison between this man's failure to look into a case and Robert Bonner's failure to look into a case. Perhaps other Members of the government feel that goes too close to the bone. Perhaps they don't like it.

But the fact of the matter is that Bonner's conduct was very similar to the conduct we're seeing from this man over there, the Attorney-General at the present time in 1974. I read to you quotes. None of them referred to a criminal case, none of them referred to the conviction of a cabinet Minister; all of which referred only to the conduct of the Attorney-General of British Columbia in the year 1956.

Those quotes, I think, are pertinent because the issue is similar in this respect. The issue — and it is obvious we are discussing the Attorney-General's estimates — is the conduct of the Attorney-General in this whole shabby affair. The issue was similar in 1956. There is no way I can deny it or anyone across the way can deny it. The issue is identical. Was the Attorney-General then...?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh ho, you had better go back again and refresh your memory. The fact is that in 1956 the case was very simple. The case of the Member, such as Webster, such as Gregory, such as Gibson, such as Brown....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Go ahead, I'm listening.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm sure it's tough to take, because your actions are just on a par with those of Robert Bonner.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! If the Member has nothing further to say, you can take your seat and I will recognize somebody else.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I intend to carry on because this is a matter fundamental to our functioning in the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want to remind you again that you are repeating, as it says in rule 43, of which you are well aware.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have to repeat issues because they are not understood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rules don't allow you to keep repeating.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, Mr. Chairman, precedent allows....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you proceed with your speech, if you have something new to say.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I raised new information today which was not canvassed when you were in the House, namely the press

[ Page 1241 ]

conference yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm well aware it has been canvassed, fully canvassed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It hasn't been fully canvassed. We only raised the evidence; we haven't even discussed it in the Legislature as yet. You make a judgment in advance of discussion, and I don't like that. I think that's wrong, because you are meant to be occupying an impartial position in the chair. I suggest you have your conduct based upon that of the Hon. Member for Skeena who, at least this morning, I think, made a very excellent effort to try and be impartial. The fact is that new evidence has come forward.

At a press conference last night of which no Member of this House had knowledge, except perhaps the Ministers who sat there, new evidence came forward from the Socred Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), dealing with a lawsuit, naming a man, Glen A. Redline of 7935-120th Street, Delta; Size of Flock, 7,848.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are being repetitive. You can't take the position that the person in the chair has changed. Your offence is to the House and to this committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That is the first time Redline has been mentioned in this whole affair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, you read that before, this morning.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to discuss the question of Redline.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you read rule 43?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have read rule 43. It is my right to discuss the Redline case, my right as an elected representative elected by the electors of British Columbia. You have no right to rule me out of order on that or subjects similar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to rule you out of order when you are repetitious because you know what is asserted in rule 43.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sit back and wait until it happens and don't anticipate debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've already waited.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. This whole case is related to the Egg Marketing Board. That comes under the Department of Agriculture.

You have ruled that this is repetitious; it doesn't belong in this department. If the Member is unsatisfied, he has one alternative, and that is to challenge your ruling. No alternative but to challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On that point of order, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to raise a point of order or are you going to argue a point of order?

MR. GIBSON: I was going to mention a ruling that Mr. Chairman made earlier on today which bears directly on this point. While indeed the facts of the case may relate to the Egg Marketing Board, it is within the administrative competence and responsibility of the Attorney-General. It is for that reason that we are bringing this up under his estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Redline case is interesting, Mr. Chairman. Here you have a man who has decided that he will not pay his egg levy to the marketing board because he believes he is not being treated as other producers in the Province of British Columbia are being treated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I am going to read you what it says in rule 43.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Go right ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech...."

You are repeating the argument of another Member, the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, are you trying to suggest that if that Member mentioned something the opposition can't mention it, or that if they mention something we can't mention it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am ruling that you are being repetitious and tedious, and that you're repeating the argument of another Member. I am ruling that if you want to continue that you'll have to challenge my ruling. It's not a question of you personally. The rules

[ Page 1242 ]

of the House are here and I'd like to agree with you, but that's impossible under the rules of this House, and you know it as well as I do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Let me read you rule 43 as you've read it to me. "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's repetitious! (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, don't be facetious!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have read the rules; you can read the rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The word is "tedious," and the word is "repetitious." Now, I have not mentioned these things to date. He has, and he's only raised them; we've not debated them. They've not been mentioned by any government Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Shall vote 11 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly not!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly not be repetitious and I will try not to be tedious.

As the Attorney-General sits there pondering the question of a public inquiry, I'd like to bring to his attention a complexity which, since it hasn't been officially brought to the attention of the House, may not have registered with him. It was a complexity raised by two of his colleagues last night in a press conference. And that complexity is this: the new evidence read into the record by the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) this morning, and raised first last night by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), relates to a second and distinct meeting.

Mr. Chairman, in that context it certainly increases and possibly doubles the arguments that I trust the Attorney-General is turning around in his mind with respect to the need for a public inquiry. The elements, of course, in the first suggestion were three-part — the element of backroom pressure, the element of a political payoff and the element of a cover-up by the Premier and the government.

The second meeting, which was the one raised in the letter from the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), described by him in the press conference as a separate and independent meeting, certainly has one of those elements of backroom pressure. It looks to me that it has the beginnings of a cover-up. The question of the favouritism to Mr. Kovachich is renewed in a very different way.

MR. DENT: Point of order. There were two rulings made from the Chair, one of which was that the matter was becoming repetitive. The other one was that there should be no debate which called into question the conduct of any other Minister, and that the information to be presented was simply to present the reasons why there should be an inquiry.

I would say that the Hon. Member is trespassing into the area of debate which is calling into question the conduct of Ministers of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point is well made and I would advise the Member that you should not be dealing with the conduct of another Ministry under this debate.

MR. GIBSON: I am trying to complete very briefly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a procedure for doing that, as I am sure you are aware. If you're not, it's a substantive motion.

MR. GIBSON: I am suggesting to the Attorney-General that this second meeting adds a second reason, and possibly a double reason. I mentioned two of the elements that were present in the first case that may have been present in the second case. I was simply going to conclude by saying that the third element of a favour to Mr. Kovachich from the government was again potentially raised by this new evidence. I would ask the Attorney-General to consider in his mind the question and discover the question as to whether the quota increase which was given was in fact paid for....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to raise with you once again that you're questioning the conduct of another Minister, which you must do under his estimates or by the other process, not under the Attorney-General's estimates. You are dealing with the estimates of the Attorney-General's office and that's what you should be dealing with.

MR. GIBSON: I am trying not to question the conduct of the other Minister, Mr. Chairman. I'm simply stating without comment the fact that in fact Mr. Kovachich was given an increase in quota of 120 cases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I bring to your attention that you are questioning the conduct of another Minister.

MR. GIBSON: I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are, and that's been ruled out earlier today. The rules are very clear on that.

MR. GIBSON: I am simply suggesting to the Attorney-General that he discover whether or not

[ Page 1243 ]

those extra quota....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That request has been made repeatedly, and I would rule you out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, that's the first time in this debate and in this House that the request has been made that the Attorney-General attempt to discover whether or not that 120 cases of extra quota was paid for. That completes the element of comparison between the first meeting and the second meeting, each of them apparently having that three part element of comparison that should justify in the Attorney-General's mind the repeated request we are making for a public inquiry.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there is no way that vote 11 can pass until we have some answers from the Attorney-General.

He has consistently refused to answer legitimate questions. Representing the views of the majority of people in the province, we have questioned him as to why he, in his independent capacity under chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, has not been obeying the law, or has not been insisting that others obey the law.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I answered that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You tried to avoid it. The question, Mr. Chairman, is this: can we at this stage vote the estimates of a man who will not be candid with the House as to his reasons for not pursuing this by way of a public inquiry? Can we pass the estimates of a Minister who will not take steps to check into impropriety in the case of a brother Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That inquiry has been repeatedly requested and it's repetitive and tedious. You're questioning the motives of a Member of this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I will repeat a motion made 18 years ago by a Member of the CCF at that time with respect to the estimates of Robert Bonner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You shouldn't be repeating anything.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I just simply then will put forward the same motion as was put forward many years ago by a Member of the old CCF when a similar case occurred. The motion is that the salary of the Hon. Attorney-General, as provided for in vote 11, be reduced by $1.

In so doing, I would remind Members of the experience of past years where backbenchers brought sense to the government on an issue very similar to this one.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I want to speak to the amendment and say that what we've seen today and through this motion is a denigration of the whole process of parliament by one Member who has taken a bit in his teeth for his own political survival and attacked perhaps one of the best Attorneys-General this province has ever had.

There's more to a motion of non-confidence against the Attorney-General than any other cabinet Member. There's more to this because it also reflects the time-honoured tradition of that man being a lawyer. And there is, Mr. Chairman, almost an accusation through this type of motion that he is not following professional conduct as well as....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. In no way am I implying....

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Take your seat! I have a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I want him to make his point of order so I can hear it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In no way am I suggesting that the Attorney-General, in his personal, professional capacity as a lawyer, is inadequate. I am saying in his capacity only as an Attorney-General under chapter 21, in which it is uniquely....

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: In continuing my argument, to have that Member stand in this House and compare this Attorney-General to the action of a former Attorney-General who refused to look at criminal actions for two years is absolutely disgraceful, in my opinion, and the lowest form of politics I've seen in my 14 years in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I don't expect to convince that Member of anything. Nor am I up here to attempt to convince him. His mind is in the gutter and hasn't left there for two weeks, as far as this House goes.

Mr. Chairman, I note that the Member doesn't even ask for a withdrawal of that. Perhaps it's tacit acceptance of what I just said. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, when such remarks are directed at me I will ask for a withdrawal. But they somehow typify the Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett).

[ Page 1244 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw unequivocally.

Mr. Chairman, this motion is an attack, not just on the Attorney-General, but in my opinion an attack on him as a lawyer. Because if you read Hansard, the attempt to link his behaviour with that of Robert Bonner is absolutely disgraceful and you, sir, through you, Mr. Chairman, are the one who brought up Mr. Bonner's name and now you're trying to deny that you did not try to make a connection between that attorney and this....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Point of order.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, a point indeed of personal privilege. I again repeat, I did not wish to infer any improper conduct on the Attorney-General....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I rule that that's an argument and not a point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, further....

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Two days!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That's not a point of order. You may have the floor to talk to the amendment, if you wish.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I will speak on in due course. But the point of order is this: that in no way was that an implication upon Robert Bonner as a lawyer. It was an implication upon their activities as Attorneys-General and those attempts of red herrings by the Premier as far as throwing responsibility himself are ridiculous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That's not a point of order, that's an argument.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Another evidence of the Member's inability to control himself or conform to the rules of this House. You'll have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting that the Member flares up every 30 seconds. He's had the floor for two days in a vilification of that Attorney-General, a calculated political attack against that Attorney-General in a manner, in my opinion, that does not befit any Member of this House. But be that on his head, not on mine.

I say that I reject this motion completely. This Attorney-General has served this province in an admirable fashion. He has the respect and admiration of his professional colleagues and almost every citizen of this province.

What we're seeing through this motion is a calculated attempt by the opposition to go through every single Minister and reduce their salary by $1, every single Minister that's been to the House so far, every single one, in a calculated attempt to somehow level some form of smear against this government.

I'm proud of this Attorney-General and I think the people of this province are. And I reject categorically that motion.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): I can appreciate the defence that the Hon. Premier has raised of the Hon. Attorney-General. However, I think it's an emotional one based upon his own personal view, not with any arguments. With respect to the conduct of the Attorney-General in the course of this debate and in fulfillment of his responsibilities of the very high office that he holds. I would like to hear from the Attorney-General on what to me seems to be the most fundamental point in this whole debate.

We have had questions raised in this House, and outside as well, with respect to the performance by other members of the government of their responsibilities. Suggestions which have clearly indicated a basis upon which belief could rest that members of the cabinet have improperly interfered in the laws of the Province of British Columbia.

Motives have been expressed for the reasons that those Ministers would have interfered in this particular way. I suggest it's improper for cabinet Ministers, Premier or otherwise, to use the authority of their office to cause people to act otherwise than in accordance with the laws of this province. Those are the clear implications from the affidavits which have been discussed and the allegations which have been made on the floor of this House, and indeed from documents presented by cabinet Ministers as recently as last night.

Now is the Attorney-General saying to us in this committee, to the legislators in this House and to the people of the Province of British Columbia, that when such serious matters are brought to public attention and to his, that he has no role to play and no responsibility to determine whether or not those charges are well founded? Is he saying that based upon the experience in the Sommers case that his responsibility as the Attorney-General is to do nothing until such time as a mass of evidence has accumulated and criminal charges are clearly

[ Page 1245 ]

indicated? Is that your responsibility, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On what charge?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Attorney-General would listen to my argument instead of responding to words that seem to inflame him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Answer the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound has the floor.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I ask the Attorney-General again, now if he'll listen. So you have no role to play when these serious implications are raised with respect to the conduct of Cabinet Ministers until such a time as a mass of evidence exists that criminal charges are indicated? Do you do nothing until that stage is reached?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Name your criminal charge.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not suggesting there is evidence....

AN HON. MEMBER: You are, you are.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not suggesting there are.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Name the charge.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'll say it again. Please listen. Do you sit back and do nothing until such time as you have a mass of evidence upon which a criminal charge can be based? Is that your responsibility as the Attorney-General of this Province? Do nothing unless and until evidence exists upon which a criminal charge can be based against a cabinet Minister?

That's the issue here. That was the issue in the Sommers case. Problems were raised in the Sommers case, debate went on. It was two years before the evidence clearly indicated the basis for a criminal charge. Now is your responsibility as one of the highest officers of the Crown of the province to do nothing until we reach that stage? Is that what you're telling the Members of this House and the public of British Columbia? That you are unable to move and unwilling to move to make inquiries into the conduct of members of government unless the basis for a criminal charge exists.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd just like to say a couple of words. The answer to the question is obviously of course I am, I did this morning under the Securities Act. It's not into the conduct of people, but it's into something that's raised. I administer my department.

What I do resent, Mr. Chairman, is this reference — and particularly from that Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, who is a respected barrister — of the constant hint that this is the Sommers case, that there's a criminal charge at the end of the road.

He doesn't state what the criminal charge is. He doesn't link the thing to the Sommers case. In the Sommers case there was sworn evidence brought an Attorney-General that there had been bribery, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. And anybody in this office who receives that kind of evidence would immediately turn it over to the police authorities for investigation and prosecution. No question about that.

But that a member of the bar such as that Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound should have this constant echo and pick it up from the Member for Victoria, that there's a relationship here between this and the Sommers situation is absolutely disgraceful and I say contemptible. He should apologize, but he won't. But I say it is disgraceful innuendo.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I have no apology to make for what I said, because I said nothing that should be offensive to any Member of this House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, you're just a dancing man, dancing around it, that's all, eh?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now the Hon. Attorney-General is making remarks which lead me to wonder whether I shouldn't call upon him to apologize because he is casting aspersions on the motives by which I stand in this House. And I ask the Attorney-General seriously again, I say to him quite clearly that based upon the evidence, based upon material tabled in this House, the arguments that have been raised, there is no basis for a criminal charge against any Member of the government. That's my considered opinion.

But what I'm asking the Attorney-General, and I ask him again and for the last time, are you telling us that if questions are raised with respect to the impropriety or propriety of the conduct of a cabinet Minister, the Attorney-General has no responsibility unless and until a body of evidence can be placed before him upon which criminal charges can be counted? Is that his responsibility?

MR. GIBSON: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I have to respond first of all briefly to the words of the Premier who expressed concern that there had been a motion to reduce by $1 the vote of every

[ Page 1246 ]

single Minister before the House to date. He shouldn't be surprised because it's all on the same case. It's all part of the same fabric. They've all deserved it, Mr. Chairman. There's the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who graduated from the Rose Mary Wood's School of Memory Training. (Laughter.) Then there was the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Member that the amendment is on the Attorney-General's estimates, not the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. GIBSON: I was talking about....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't let him reply.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier spoke precisely on this point, and I presume was concerned about the fact that there was a move to reduce his own salary as well, and he's very much a part of this case, and the accusations that stand against him in this House. Now the Attorney-General just expressed concern over references which have been made to this case and the Sommers case. I suggest to the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the way is open to him to remove this comparison today by appointing an inquiry. The inquiry that has been demanded by speaker after speaker in this House.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Put up your seat!

MR. GIBSON: There's been some seats put up, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, put up your own.

MR. CUMMINGS: Put up or shut up, put up your seat!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Dealing with the amendment, the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Surely he has this remedy open to him. That is the sum and substance of what I have to suggest at this point, Mr. Chairman, the case has been very, very well made. That there has been backroom pressure by the Premier, that there has been political favouritism to the friends of the government, and that there has been a cover-up by the Premier and the government and their sworn affidavits. If that doesn't make a case for the Attorney-General having an inquiry, I don't know what does.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier a few minutes ago launched into a pretty vicious attack on the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson)...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on!

MR. McGEER: ...because he moved a motion of non-confidence in the Attorney-General on a pretty obvious matter of principle, and that matter of principle is whether there should be one law for Sy Kovachich and another law for everyone else. The leader of the Liberal Party has taken what I would consider to be a pretty time-honoured position, one law for everyone.

The Premier accused the leader of the Liberal Party of bringing this legislative chamber into disrepute. Mr. Chairman, it wasn't the leader of the Liberal Party that used unforgivable language to a member of the press. The leader of the Liberal Party has been perfectly consistent in the position he has taken throughout this whole unfortunate affair. He has shown he believed the affidavits of four honourable British Columbia citizens who swore to the truth of the statements they made before judiciary officials in this province.

He has further said he is prepared to personally stake his seat on the veracity of those men, and not that of the Premier, before an impartial judicial inquiry. That's backing up your position. That's placing the honour of this Legislative Assembly above all else, and it's showing a respect for the law and the processes of law, but it's unfortunately been totally absent in the actions of a number of Ministers of the Crown including the Premier.

He hasn't resorted to gutter-sniping, to vulgar language in the corridors directed to people who only reported honestly what went on in this chamber. Now, Mr. Chairman, we do need some dignity in this chamber. We do need some respect for the law. We do need to get to the bottom of an issue where quite conflicting statements have been made...

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): We've been at the bottom for two weeks.

MR. McGEER: ...between people that have sworn affidavits and Ministers of the Crown who presented rather different stories under the protective rules that apply to this assembly.

Of course, the Attorney-General's conduct must be challenged. How can the Attorney-General stand in this assembly and tell us everyone is equal under the law? How can he say that the treatment accorded Sy Kovachich is the same as the treatment afforded other citizens of British Columbia? How can he ignore the sworn testimony of Mr. Brunsdon and the others who have been associated with the Egg Marketing Board and the Broiler Marketing Board?

How can he reconcile that with the statements of the Minister of Agriculture who conveniently forgot

[ Page 1247 ]

all about it during his estimates, but remembered very clearly last night when he called a press conference to produce a letter that he himself had written? A letter that stated quite openly that there had been an agreement between the Premier and Mr. Sy Kovachich, something which the Premier himself denied only last night.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was an agreement to go to the lawyers. I never denied that.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order! I want to raise with the Member that you're being repetitive. You're repeating arguments that have been argued already today.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you no matter what your ruling is these arguments aren't going to be forgotten because they show up completely the way the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier have behaved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I would bring to the Member's attention that there are rules in this House and everybody has to obey those rules. It isn't a case of rules for you and rules for anybody else. It's the rules of the House.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, quite clearly the House makes up — and I'm not saying that that involves the Members of the opposition — the House makes up a great many rules as it goes along....

MR. CHAIRMAN: But the rule that you're dealing with is rule 43 and you know that you cannot....

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Chairman, we're not dealing with rule 43. We're dealing with how you and your caucus decide to interpret rule 43 and you're not fooling me or anybody else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Those kind of statements are....

MR. McGEER: We've seen it done by other governments, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Rule 43 says that you cannot be tedious and repetitious and you are being that.

MR. McGEER: You may think I'm being tedious and repetitious but the public doesn't, Mr. Chairman, and we're in here debating not for your benefit but for the benefit of the public of British Columbia, who have a right to know....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm saying that rule 43 says that you shall not be tedious and repetitious and that's what you're doing, and I'm ruling that if you're going to continue on your feet then you'd better produce another kind of an argument.

MR. McGEER: We're well aware of that, Mr. Chairman, we're very well aware of rule 43 and we're also aware....

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you're aware, abide by rule 43.

MR. McGEER: We're well aware of how Chairmen like to interpret rule 43. We know what rule 43 is and when I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're challenging my ruling? Are you challenging my ruling?

MR. McGEER: No. I'm making observations on it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think it's your place to argue the ruling of the Chair.

MR. McGEER: We're discussing amendments...

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're discussing an amendment?

MR. McGEER: ...to the vote that's before this chamber and the fact that the Attorney-General's salary — if the Members vote for it, and I suggest they should, Mr. Chairman — be reduced by $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rules apply to that amendment as well as to the main debate and you're well aware of that.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would have been done now if you'd given me an opportunity to summarize. I think that's within the rights of any Member, to summarize the information, and the information is to the effect that there is more than one kind of law in this province, and that the Attorney-General whose responsibility it is to see that there's equality under the laws is failing in that responsibility.

I think that $1 reduction in his salary for that kind of failure to abide by his responsibility is modest indeed. Just $1. The Attorney-General, he'll be able to survive quite well with only $1 less. I'd be prepared to make up the extra $1 myself. But we're not prepared, Mr. Chairman, to forgive the principle involved which lies behind this motion of

[ Page 1248 ]

non-confidence.

New evidence has been brought forward this morning that one citizen of British Columbia is refusing to pay his levies to the Egg Marketing Board because he wants the Kovachich treatment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You are being repetitious and tedious.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you think....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am suggesting that if you continue your debate, you continue it on the basis that you stay in order.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, is it out of order to mention that this man has refused to pay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This matter has been thoroughly canvassed in this committee and it's not in order to continue.

MR. McGEER: I don't know...very few Members have made observations. I refer to the backbenchers, Mr. Chairman, who ultimately have the fate of the government in their hands.

Does the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) think this is good or bad? Does the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) think it's good or bad? Does the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) think it's good or bad?

I think it's bad, Mr. Chairman, and I think it's important that we know whether these people think it's bad or good. If they're not allowed to say whether they think it's bad or good, then we have no way of judging what their values are.

Now, we're putting on the record what our values are. We think that it's bad that he should be defying the Egg Marketing Board, but....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, Mr. Member, you are well aware of the rules. You put on record what your feelings are, but you don't need to put it on record over and over again. That's why the rule is there.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I was putting my opinion in this matter on the record and you interrupted me. I think I should be able to say that I think it's wrong without being tedious and repetitious. And every Member ought to have the opportunity of saying whether it's right or wrong.

I think it's important, for example....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I say that you're being repetitious and tedious whether you are repeating your own arguments or the arguments of another Member. That's what the rule says and you are well aware of it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, for example, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) — her constituents need to know how she stands on this matter because it affects the price of eggs.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: It does. No question about it. If the man from Delta pays his levy to the Egg Marketing Board, presumably, eventually this will reflect itself on lower prices for eggs. If he doesn't, then that money does not go to the Egg Marketing Board and the price of eggs will rise. That's a practical consideration, quite apart from the moral issue here.

Every Member should be speaking to this particular motion, saying whether they think it is right or whether they think it is wrong that there are two laws in British Columbia as applied by the Attorney-General and his department.

Mr. Chairman, with every respect, this isn't being tedious and repetitious. This is each Member placing himself or herself on the record before the people of British Columbia and their own constituents.

It isn't good enough on a matter such as this for everybody to remain mute and silent hoping that the issue will go away if they're a government Member. It isn't going to go away, Mr. Chairman. A very critical issue and a very critical vote. I don't think we should hurry at all. I don't think we should hurry; I think we should hear from every single Member.

As far as I'm concerned it's like a skunk at a garden party, and we've got to ferret out what's been going on here between the government and Mr. Sy Kovachich, and why it is that the Ministers are making so many statements that are discrepant with the facts. And why it is that the Attorney-General, whose estimates are being discussed today, is unwilling to enforce the law equally on every citizen of British Columbia.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we've all sat in this Legislature for the last 12 days. We've listened to a number of debates and the debate which the Liberals have continued for that whole 12 days not thinking in terms of the needs of the people of this province, not thinking in terms of any of the other important areas of the Agricultural department, or the Department of the Premier, or the Department of Finance, and now the Department of the Attorney-General. They have continued on this one character assassination that has been their obvious objective. And I'm sorry for the remainder of the Liberal Party that have been sucked in by their leader, Mr. Chairman. I can think of no other reason for the remainder of that group, who have not acted like this in the past, over the years — and I have been

[ Page 1249 ]

here for a few years.... I'm pleased to see that a number of other people in this chamber have not acted in such an irresponsible way.

I've said before that maybe this is just because of lack of homework, but it is not. It can't be deemed lack of homework any longer. It must be deemed a man with nothing more on his mind than venom and smear and hurt, and always at people.

I remember some of the great philosophers of the old days who were teaching us how the arguments of parliament work, and how the arguments of inter-human relationships work. They said that when you have no other argument, then go after the person himself. When you have nothing else to say, go after the person himself. And, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what has been going on in this House.

I see no reason for us to continue on, but I'd like to say that the Attorney-General of this province.... And I have been proud to associate myself in the last four years with this group. Very proud, indeed, of my association with the Premier, with the Attorney-General, with the Minister of Agriculture, and it will be with other Ministers, I presume, as we go along.

Remember, everybody in this House, remember we're talking about an Hon. Member of the Legislature and we're talking about an honourable member of the bar, and we're asking the people in this House to vote non-confidence in that Member who has probably as fine a reputation as anybody in this province outside and inside this House. And there is no possible way on earth I could ever be even slightly motivated towards going along with an irresponsible act like this. Putting forward an amendment like that is probably one of the most irresponsible things I've seen since I've been a Member of this chamber. Thank you.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think this debate has finally got around to bringing out the base where people really live.

I look across the floor at the other Members — the Members of the opposition, the Members of the Social Credit Party. The Members of the Social Credit Party different in ideology but coming, probably, from the same socio-economic background as most of the Members on this side of the House.

You know, this really does bring out the base, because I look at those Members from the Liberal Party and I'm reminded every time they speak in the supercilious manner in which they conduct themselves in this House.

The leader of the Liberal Party who honestly believes that he is an intellectual giant among little people in this House, including Members from his own party. It comes through every time he speaks. Supercilious; talks down. I have never seen anything like it in my life.

All he is trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is save face within his party, within this House, within the people of British Columbia because he got stabbed in the back from his own people. He knows it and he's trying to save face. There's no use smiling; everybody knows it. Everybody. I've talked with people from your own party: they know it; everybody in this House knows it; everybody in this Province knows it. It's just a cheap, dirty political game you're playing and everybody knows that too. I believe that....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: Where are they from, Mr. Chairman? What ridings do they represent? What kind of people do they represent? That's what it is all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! A point of order is called.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A point of order. As the Premier has made clear, unless I defend myself every time a Minister makes some stupid remark, such as the one who sat down just did, I will be accused of having let it go by. So I would ask the Member to withdraw the insulting remarks he just made.

HON. MR. LEA: Which one, Mr. Chairman?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you would like to be specific, Mr. Minister, the "cheap and dirty." I think that's unfair; I think it's unparliamentary, and I'd ask you to withdraw it.

HON. MR. LEA: I said it was a cheap, dirty political game; I didn't say he was. If he wants to take that inference....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you withdraw that part of it ?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, I'll withdraw that part.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, no. He withdraws the whole thing or you're going to have to make a ruling.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I've withdrawn the whole thing. You know, it's unparliamentary to say that.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Chairman, in this matter, I'd like to put forth the view of a new Minister in this government.

This department, the department I represent, is, in effect, a child of the office of the Attorney-General. Many of the matters that came under the purview of

[ Page 1250 ]

the Attorney-General prior to the inception of this department are now with me.

I wish to tell the House of the tremendous assistance, guidance and encouragement I received from that Minister and from that department. I also would wish to tell the House that it has been generously given, it has been given over a long period of time to a new person, and I am eternally grateful to that Minister and his department. Therefore, in no way could I support this motion.

MR. DENT: Mr. Chairman, I stand to speak in opposition to the amendment. I would concur with the remarks of the Minister of Consumer Affairs. I think the Attorney-General and his department are excellent and have certainly given all assistance to anyone who requested it, especially on any personal problem or any problem in our constituencies where we've sought and asked for assistance. His conduct has been not one to question but to commend.

I left the chair because a certain hint was dropped that I might be partial because of my involvement with this issue. I felt that the point was well taken and I'm speaking in support....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You're dealing with the amendment.

MR. DENT: I'm speaking against the amendment. I felt that by stepping out of the chair there would be consideration given to the estimates before us and to the administrative actions and responsibilities of the Minister and of his department. But I was wrong. I thought it would help, but it didn't help. I regret now that I did leave the chair. However, now that I've left the chair I will speak in my place in support of the Attorney-General.

I feel that the vote of non-confidence in the Minister was perhaps undertaken with some possible good reason. If there was any good reason, and I'm not saying there was (I mean there's a possibility there was), that certainly has not been the basis for the continued debate. I'm not going to say anything further other than to read a short quote and ask you to measure this yourself.

Was this amendment moved with the intention of calling into question the administrative responsibilities of the Minister or of the department, and previous motions to the same effect for other Ministers? I realize those comments are out of order. But I just want to read this.

The Hon. Minister of Health referred to a philosopher in the past who made certain comments about debate. That philosopher was named Schopenhauer and he wrote a lot of things; he was a very famous philosopher. One of the things he did was to outline all of the different arguments that can be used in debate and reveal the motives that lie behind what people do. As he pointed out, when all else fails, an attack upon the person seems to be the right thing.

I just want to read the first section of Strategy No. 38 by Schopenhauer: "When All Else Fails."

"A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand and that you are going to come off the worst. It consists in passing from the subject of the dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personum, to distinguish it from other arguments which pass from the objective discussion of the subject true and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it.

"But in becoming personal, you leave the subject altogether and turn your attack to his person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or mere animalism.

"This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect and so it is a frequent application."

I'm not saying that we have reached that point, but I feel the character and the person of the Attorney-General is, in my judgment, first rate. There's no doubt that he's an honourable gentleman of this House. I feel that, all else having failed, this motion was put forward. I would ask the House to defeat the motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member for Skeena summed up well, I think, what happens when logic fails, when reasonable arguments fail. The attack then becomes against the motives and against the person of a man with whom one is arguing or with whom one is in dispute. I think that somehow or another sums up the speech of the Premier, the speech of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and the speech of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). Not the Minister of Consumer Services; she simply talked on a different subject.

The fact is that we have tried in every way, as honourably as we can, day after day, to have an inquiry into matters which we feel deserve an inquiry — an inquiry outside of politics, an inquiry outside of the partisan nature of the debate in this House. This has been done now for two weeks. We have tried it very hard. It was because of the failure of our efforts to get a reasonable, rational settlement outside of politics, where people with no axe to grind at all, no political reputation involved, could decide the issues and what actually took place, that I called so often for a judicial inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I realize this is a grave charge. I was

[ Page 1251 ]

willing, as has been mentioned, to stake my seat on the veracity of Mr. Brunsdon's affidavit. I stated I would resign my seat and I repeat that statement today. It is obviously something of substantial importance. For the good working of the House, I thought it would be necessary for me, were Brunsdon's affidavit proved inaccurate by an independent tribunal or judge, for me to resign. That's the position I held then; the position I hold now.

Since first making that, time after time we've tried to get to the bottom of this; we've tried to get the evidence presented to the House; we've tried to get evidence presented to an independent tribunal. We find only that when there is suspicion on the government side that the opposition knows something, then by press conference they release the little driplets of information which add up, we think, to a damning case.

There is not much I can add to this except to point out that the Hon. Member from Skeena is right. I feel that the attacks today against me, this refusal to recognize the amount of effort we have spent, the amount of time we have spent to get a dispassionate, non-political inquiry into this perhaps indicates he was dead right in his estimation of what was happening. The Strategy No. 38 of Schopenhauer he referred to was indeed being employed by the Ministers I have referred to.

There isn't much more to add in this debate. It is an amendment which is similarly formed to others. I can assure the Chair that there will be fewer, many fewer, in future. But the three first Ministers to come up were the three involved in this affair in the greatest detail. It's one that we did not put forward early in the debate. We did not put it forward early in the debates of other Ministers either because we hoped it would not be necessary to put forward a motion of this nature which is, as the Member from Skeena (Mr. Dent) has indicated, a motion of non-confidence in the Attorney-General.

We have thought about it seriously. We have tried hard to act in the most responsible way we can in this whole affair. But we have not, in our opinion, been met by a spirit on the government side of co-operation and willingness to have the light let in on this particular subject.

There comes a time in politics, and I've often had to do it myself, where a backbencher has to decide whether to support the government or leave the chamber. I must admit I have many times had to leave the chamber in votes because I felt that the vote in question was not one with which I wish to associate myself. I think my voting record over the last few years has indicated that. This is such a case, I feel, for Members of the NDP sitting, in particular, in the back bench. Speeches given today have clearly been designed to rally the back bench. I don't know whether they have succeeded; we'll see only when the vote comes. A vote on a matter such as this is an important vote. Simply because you respect the Attorney-General personally or you feel that he has been helpful to you in the establishment of a Ministry or in other ways.... I admit I find him excellent company and a very pleasant man. Certainly I wish to repeat again that in no way do I cast any aspersions upon his professional capacity or reputation in that regard, outside, of course, of his capacity as the chief law-officer of the Crown. No, it's not a question of a personal vendetta against a man whom I personally like. It is a case independent of personal relationships, a case of principle.

Are we, as the Member for West Vancouver (Mr. L.A. Williams) said, to have no action of inquiry from him unless if is a case of criminal action? I don't think it should be. I think we should have confidence, here in the opposition, in the Attorney-General, just as Members of the government have confidence in him. We, Mr. Chairman, do not have confidence in the Attorney-General on the basis of his actions to date in this affair. It is with regret that I move the motion that I do.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I find myself in much the same position as I did in an earlier debate when the issue seemed to be whether opposition Members were convicting an Hon. Member of this House of some wrongdoing. In that comment I made at that time I stated, and I state now, that the serious duty of any Member of this House on such a serious issue is to listen to both sides of the argument and determine whether or not, to the satisfaction of all concerned, the outcome of that argument has been, in fact, determined in this chamber. On that last occasion I agreed that there was need for some kind of inquiry to reach a final determination of a very serious issue.

I am as perturbed as many Members of the opposition obviously are at the manner in which the government has chosen to deal with this most recent turn of events: namely, the issuing of the disclosure at a press conference of this written agreement and the very damaging sentence in the letter of August 1, 1973, in which the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) states, and I quote,"...as I reread the Kovachich agreement as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others" — and that's all I'm quoting. This, I must admit, Mr. Chairman, causes me a great deal of concern.

I will say one thing: I wish completely to disassociate myself from the mentioning of the name Sommers over and over again. I feel that in the course of time a clear, criminal act was demonstrated, taken to court and proven. I think it is a very dishonourable act of any Member of this Legislature, however keen he is to promote his arguments — as he is entitled to

[ Page 1252 ]

do — to keep dropping in the name which carries for anyone listening the clear implication that we are dealing with a similar situation today.

I just want it very clearly on record, Mr. Chairman. I will try to expand my arguments on the other aspects of this serious situation. But on this one point, I think, it weakens the opposition argument, and I think it is not an honourable act or a statement on the part of any of us to bring in the clear unmistakable kind of implication which must cause the listener to reach only one conclusion — that somehow or other this situation resembles the criminal nature of the Sommers situation.

To try and explain to the House my own position, the position of this party, I would say, as I have said in earlier debate, that I think government Ministers have made mistakes and have interfered, regardless of motivation, with the result that they have actually compounded the problem rather than solving the problem which they set out to try to solve.

Again, I am not trying to be smart-alecky about this. We are all very clever people in retrospect. I can see that this kind of unwise interference is something which any one of us in this House could have got involved in.

The fact is that some very unusual dealings went on of which the Attorney-General must now be fully aware. Really, the issue we have to determine is whether, in light of these misguided interferences by Ministers, the unfortunate conclusions which people in this province might well draw from these interferences and the damage to the whole integrity of government — never mind the Ministers involved — is something which rational people have to evaluate for themselves.

I might say in passing, as I have tried to point out in earlier comments in the Minister's estimates, I am far from satisfied with the Minister's performance, regardless of this particular issue. I don't want to be tedious and repetitious but I do feel, in speaking on this amendment, that the Minister has enunciated I think, a five-year programme to change the administration of criminal justice to bring about improvements and so on. Yet I feel that on some of the most basic, immediate, obvious things which could be done, he has done nothing. I don't, as I say, want to hammer away at old stuff, as I have mentioned already.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) made repeated references to the fact that I was away during certain debate and tried to read something into those absences, suggesting that there was something wrong with my being absent when the Premier's estimates were up.

With leave of the House, I'd like to file an invitation to attend the B.C. Provincial Seed Fair meeting in Fort St. John. The invitation was dated December 21 and acceptance was dated January 4. Here is the printed programme, and with leave I'll file these.

Leave granted.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): This morning I was referring to correspondence allegedly from the Minister of Agriculture to Mr. Janzen of the Marketing Board, dated August 14, 1973. I have a copy and, with leave of the House, I'd like to table it.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.