[ Page 1323 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Administration of Justice.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1323

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1323

Routine proceedings

Speech from the Throne.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1323

Mr. Lorimer –– 1325

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1327

Ms. Brown –– 1331

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1332

Mr. Barber –– 1335

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1339

Ministerial statement

Administration of justice.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1339

Mr. Macdonald –– 1340

FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is all too seldom that I have guests in the chamber from the great constituency of Chilliwack — particularly on a Friday morning, because it takes four and a half hours to get here. Seated in the gallery today are the president and several of the directors of the East Chilliwack Cooperative Association. I would like the members to make them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome some visitors from the north end of the Island: the chairman of the Comox-Strathcona Regional District, Mr. Keith Hudson; a director and alderman for Campbell River, Joan Stephens, and the administrator for the regional district, Wayne d'Easum.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in welcoming a member of another place, the recently reelected Member of Parliament for Waterloo, Mr. Walter McLean. He is a native Victorian, and is in the gallery opposite.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, from time to time we get the opportunity to give credit to our staff in the ridings, particularly our secretaries: I would like to welcome my riding secretary, Dawn Black, and her sons, David, Matthew and Stewart Black, who are sitting in the gallery.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement on a matter connected with the administration of justice.

Leave granted.

CBC REPORT ON FAVOURITISM
IN ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on television last night there was a story of very grave import. The story on CBC television said two things: first, that there had been favouritism in the justice system; that justice had been administered partially and not impartially in some cases. No more serious allegations could be made, for, if they are true, public confidence in the entire system of law and order breaks down.

The other thing it said was that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) had been apprised by letter of some part of this at least. There is, in any case, a close relationship of mutual responsibility between a minister and his deputy. The allegations necessarily therefore involved the office of the Attorney-General as well. The truth or otherwise of this kind of interference with justice must be established.

Attorneys-General, former and present, cannot investigate their own offices. We believe that the right thing would be for the present and former Attorneys-General to stand down from their ministerial offices while the truth of the matter is ascertained. The federal Minister of Justice should be involved, and we would like some members of the opposition to be part of the discussions as to procedures.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in responding I would like to say that the allegations viewed on television by many British Columbians were serious indeed in nature. The Attorney-General has taken the opportunity now, not having seen the program last night, to review the allegations and to conduct his review. A statement, I'm sure, will be forthcoming very, very shortly.

I say to all members of this House that the government is concerned about the administration of justice in this province, as are all members and all citizens, and we too look forward to a full, frank and complete statement on this matter.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yesterday we were having a little fun. If you'll recall, there were constant challenges from the members opposite with respect to the leadership. If I may refer to some of the earlier comments I made, the Premier, with respect to certain difficulties which have been encountered, stood up in early November and made it abundantly clear to all British Columbians that, "as leader of this party, I accept without hesitation responsibility for those acts." That's a clear, unequivocal statement, and the record speaks for itself.

With respect to leadership, I made some comments with respect to the opposition. I recall well a number of things that occurred in 1975. For those members opposite who are prepared to challenge that, I think the record there speaks for itself as well. I made reference to daylight saving, and we all remember it being on again, off again.

I remember what happened to the former Minister of Mines just before the election. He dumped the Minister of Mines and came back and immediately said: "A quick review of taxes and royalties has been promised."

I think we have to make reference also to the then Minister of Finance: he'd been canned as well. I think the Leader of the Opposition then began to realize....

I think these points are important. When somebody is prepared to challenge the leadership of others, l think perhaps it's healthy to review the record.

I remember also the comments which were made during 1975. I thought it was a great statement that the Leader of the Opposition made. He said: "The government fired me, and the people hired me." That's a matter of record. It's a good statement. But let's not any of us forget that in 1975 we gave him his notice, and in 1979 the same story was told again.

We remember well what happened in the forest industry when the opposition members felt it was best that they go into business for themselves. The general feeling was that given enough time, the government would be the only one in that business.

Even the members opposite, and their own party, and their most famous leader — or one of their most famous leaders — came up and said: "I've realized it's possible to plan an economy without owning it." That's a significant statement; "I've realized that it's possible to plan an economy without owning it." The author of that statement was T.C. Douglas. You know, Mr. Douglas also said something else which I thought was important as well, with respect

[ Page 1324 ]

to the economy. He said: "Canadians do not want to escape from big business only to fall into the clutches of big government." I think that's a significant statement as well, and it's something which we believe in.

I mentioned yesterday the significance of resources, and what the Fathers of Confederation said, and how the constitution was structured, and the fact that natural resources, in fact, were the property of the provinces. Leadership has been shown, Mr. Speaker, by our Premier. He felt very strongly about this and led the way for the four western provinces. He made his mark, and he made it well. In the election in 1979 the people spoke, and he received his mandate, and it was based on resource control.

You know, I often wondered what happened with the handling of the budget in the previous years, and the expenditure of funds, and those funds which were spent long before they were secured. It seems to me that the members opposite spend the money and then go out and find where it's going to come from. Their view of economic planning is that you decide what you want to spend and then extract it from the taxpayer. We take exactly the opposite view; the ends which we have may be the same but it's the manner in which we travel. The statement from the Labour government in Great Britain which I mentioned yesterday said this: "There's only one way in which we can provide the social benefits to everybody, and that is through a well-planned economy with a strong resource base." That's what we're doing. That's first and that's our plan.

MR. MACDONALD: Right on, Jack! You'd better go back to the Liberal Party.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm quite, quite happy here, Mr. Member.

I was most interested in and humoured by the speech of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) because he kept making reference to the government not having a plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Smile when you say that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I couldn't smile because I had this in front of me, Mr. Member. "From the view of economic planning," I said, "you decide what you want and spend what you can extract from the taxpayer."

Here I find a statement by the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. I understand that the statement put to him was: "It was" — his government — "like a house of casual pleasure run by the girls." I thought that was a rather strong statement. But the member's response was this: "The government never had a blueprint for office." Do you remember making that statement? "It lacked one when it took office and failed to develop one subsequently. Our basic interests and ideas were right, but the needed refinement of them never occurred. Effective management was lacking. Anyway, you can't advance on a broad number of fronts — we did — and maintain a blueprint."

I think you probably put it in a nutshell. It was an honest statement by you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There was no plan, but you were honest enough to say that.

MR. LEVI: Cite the quote.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, please address the Chair. And let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There is another item which I would like to raise — this came as a bit of a shock to me. It involved health services and hospital planning. It was out in the last election — my introduction as a candidate in a provincial election. I have to tell you that it bothered me a great deal. It involved the advertising involving hospital services.

I thought that perhaps I would get the facts after the allegations were made that our hospitals' doors were going to be closed. And where do you expect me to go? I'm going to go to the hospital in my community — the regional hospital in Prince George. It is a fine hospital and I might say — in support of the government — that over the last three and a half years there has been a magnificent improvement in capital expenditures made. It's something we're very proud of.

A statement was made that we were turning people away. It was rather embarrassing for my opponent in the last provincial election, who happened to be a practising doctor and working in the hospital. You know, people in my community never had to worry about health care at all. The hospital was open. The advertisements which the members opposite had placed before the electorate were untrue. I accept that as part of politics, but what I can't accept and what really bothered me was the type of fear that it seemed to put within many of the electorate — supporters of either party. There was a fear, and I don't think that is a fair type of campaign practice at all.

This is a quote which came out of a letter from the hospital administrator. I will tell you that hospital administrator has had difficulties with the government — as all do, because they want a great deal of money. They want everything and we know how expensive additions to hospitals are — and the type of equipment which they require. Summarizing briefly, he said:

"Our construction activity…I believe it accurate to say that the plans are developing well and that, in accordance with the minister's response to our brief last year, the government has been working positively with us to accelerate the completion of our regional facility. We will certainly keep you advised of developments."

He goes on in his letter and says: "There is one problem which we have and it involves parking." I want you to know that I took exception to some of the advertising that went out because it involved more than just politics; it involved a concern, and a genuine concern, expressed by some of the electorate who were not informed.

There's one item which I feel I have to raise. I was hoping that the members for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) would be here. I'm afraid that I have to take issue with this. It involves a statement from the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). I don't really believe that member understood what he said. I have the Blues in front of me and they state clearly, unless the Blues are incorrect, when he makes reference to the hon. member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — he made it clear:

[ Page 1325 ]

"...problems with the law to the extent where they have found it necessary to bug his office." I'm only going to mention this in passing, Mr. Speaker, but the member for Vancouver Centre and the member for Coquitlam-Moody, being members of the legal profession and both practising, are well aware of what happens in the contents of affidavits when applications are made for interceptions. The public will draw conclusions, and draw those conclusions because they have not been informed and are not educated in that particular area. You can't blame the public when they rely on a statement made by a member.

The concern which I have is this: when a statement is made about something that serious, I think one should be very, very sure of what one is saying, because there is nothing else that we have — and I am talking to all members of this House — to take to our graves than our reputations. Nothing else matters but that when we leave this place we've left it a better place. That's all that matters; and it is so easy to hurt somebody's reputation.

There is something very fundamental as well within our system of justice; it's a basis of our rule of law. There is a presumption, and we all know what that presumption is: because of the particular safety within this chamber we can make statements without fear. I think that while that privilege should be given to us, when we're talking about things like this, we also have a duty to make it abundantly clear that we know of what we talk, and that we never cast aspersions upon any member of this House unless we really know what we are doing.

I don't think I should make any further statements on this, except the following: I don't think we should make a statement until we know that our ship is in port. That's all I have to say with respect to it. But I have to tell the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) that it pains me to have to have said what I did; but I feel I am not only duty-bound but honour-bound and morally bound to express my views on that subject.

Back into more of the substance on the throne speech, which of course I'm speaking in favour of, Mr. Speaker. That speech contains a very ambitious project for our province.

MR. LEVI: On the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Oh, no. To the hon. member: you know I may be new, but I'm not that new in here.

I think we must make reference to the insurance program that has come through. The program is important. Expansion of the capital expenditures in the province is significant. When I go to my own riding I know the amount of money that's being ploughed in. There is a recent twinning of another pulp mill, and from a social point of view we will now have at least another 250 to 300 employees as a result of the confidence which that particular company had in our province. When you have that type of confidence within the province, it must be a reflection upon the government of the day. We know about the expansions in sawmills and exploration. The north and the central interior of this province are moving and moving well.

If ever any caveat is placed upon it, it's something which it's impossible to control, probably the cruellest thing of all: inflation and the cost of borrowing capital. There is no question that that cost is affecting some residential development. It's fortunate that we in our community are able to provide land, serviced with every type of service which goes to a particular residential lot, and manage to put that on the market at a price acceptable to all. It's an encouragement. Probably one of the best things of all, too, is that when they acquire that lot, people in our community own it and no longer need to worry about the leasehold concept.

Mr. Speaker, transportation is significant to those of us from the central interior and the northern part of this province. The program sponsored by the government and encouraged by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has been very significant, and I am delighted to see what has happened. A commitment was made to our community, and it's now being delivered in the nature of improved roads and bridges, all under construction or in the planning stage.

In conclusion, I speak in support of the throne speech. It's going to provide an exciting future for the province. Indications are there of confidence in the economy, capital construction and social programs, and the delivery of denticare. I'm very pleased about this, because when I made my first speech in the House last year it was something I alluded to when I had the honour of responding to the throne speech. I made reference to it, and I was pleased. It's in the speech, and it's going to be delivered.

One final comment, Mr. Speaker. What makes us different from the members opposite, in my view, is this — I've said it before: it's the private sector that creates the wealth of the nation, and it's with that wealth we will successfully implement the social programs we all want. The important thing is to maintain confidence in the economy. We'll encourage the area in the private sector, because it's they who will help us all.

MR. LORIMER: Firstly, I would like to congratulate the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his election as the Deputy Speaker. We will all be watching this member with keen interest to determine whether, in fact, he is worth the price of a bridge. We will find that out, I am sure, within a few months.

On a more serious note, I would like to state that like other members in this House, I watched and witnessed the show on the CBC news last night — the 6 o'clock news. I must say that I was appalled and deeply saddened by what I saw. Here was an expose of favours being done for friends of the Deputy Attorney-General, and for friends of the government. The allegations were very clear and if, in fact, they are correct, there have been, to my mind, very serious infringements of the duties and responsibilities of the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

We all know that immediately on hearing of the questions involved with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), locks were placed on the doors of that particular member; there is a problem that some evidence might escape. Last night our House Leader (Mr. Howard) sent a telegram to the chief justice of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, and I'll read it:

I AM GRAVELY CONCERNED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. IN A NEWS REPORT RELEASED THIS EVENING BY THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION DEEPLY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE CONCERNING THE OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF MR. RICHARD VOGEL, DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MR. GARDE GARDOM, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND MR. ALLAN WILLIAMS, PRESENT ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE PROVINCE. AS HOUSE LEADER OF HER MAJESTY'S LOYAL OPPOSITION I MAKE NO

[ Page 1326 ]

JUDGMENT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE SUCH THAT THE CITIZENS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MUST BE ASSURED THAT POSSIBLE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THESE ALLEGATIONS IS PROTECTED. THEREFORE WE HUMBLY ASK YOU TO USE THE INHERENT POWERS OF YOUR OFFICE TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING STEPS FORTHWITH: (1) ISSUE AN ORDER TO PHYSICALLY SEAL THE OFFICES AND FILES OF MR. VOGEL, MR. GARDOM, MR. WILLIAMS. (2) REQUIRE THE PRESENCE OF RCMP OFFICERS IN THOSE OFFICES TO ENSURE THAT ANY POSSIBLE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THESE MATTERS WILL BE PROTECTED.

A similar telegram has also been sent to the chief justice of British Columbia.

I know that this may have come as a shock to many of you last night, as it did to me. After what we witnessed last night there can be little….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). Please state your point of order.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate your guidance on the following. We've just heard from the member that a matter has been referred to the court for consideration. In view of that, your guidance is sought as to the degree to which it can be discussed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is only on such a matter as has been referred to the court in actuality that it becomes a matter of sub judice. However, I would remind the hon. member who has the floor that the scope of debate is limited to the extent that if personal allegations are to be made, they are to be made on substantive motion only, and that motion requires two days' notice.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am not making any allegations whatever, and with reference to my learned lawyer friend from behind, I would like to suggest to him that there's been no telegram sent to the courts or any action taken by the courts.

As I have stated, I am making no allegations whatever as to the truth or otherwise of the show that I witnessed last night on television.

But after what we witnessed last night, I suggest that there can be little trust and little confidence in the high echelons of the Attorney-General's ministry. There can be little faith in the Deputy Attorney-General; there can be little trust in the former Attorney-General; and there is certainly a cloud over the head of the present Attorney-General.

The whole sordid mess now brings into question the decisions reached in a number of other inquiries made by the Attorney-General's ministry. What interference came into the decisions reached with reference to the Lettergate investigations? Did the Deputy Attorney-General interfere in those decisions? What about the case involving the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie)? Was there interference in this case? We don't know. However, as a result of the information, we do know that there is a cloud over the head of that honourable member.

Surely we all appreciate that the cornerstones of a free democratic society must be measured by the justice system of that particular society. Without integrity in the administration of justice, there can be no freedom in the state. Without integrity in the Attorney-General's ministry, democracy is in serious jeopardy. The rot apparent and alleged by this TV program must be eradicated.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

It appears from statements in the newspaper that the Attorney-General had knowledge of this program and of the allegations prior to last night. The Province of this morning states:

"Before leaving for Vancouver Thursday, Attorney-General Williams said he had approached the CBC Wednesday to ask if an agent appointed by himself could view the film before it was shown. 'I explained to Len Lauk (Gary Lauk's brother), head of CBC Vancouver, that I was in no way suggesting that the film should not be shown or the item broadcast. But as it could have serious repercussions on the administration of justice across Canada, I would like to be apprised of its content'."

So he knew. And I agree with him that it has an impact on the administration of justice throughout Canada. But he knew at least two days ago of the allegations. The former Attorney General knew about the allegations some months ago, apparently, due to the fact that a letter had been written to him from the prosecutor in Vancouver. I think that those letters should be tabled in this House. I think there are now a number of other things that should be tabled in this House — the investigations that have been held through the Attorney General's ministry.

We know that at least two days ago the Attorney-General had knowledge.... We were advised on the program that the former Attorney-General had knowledge of the allegations some months ago. I wonder how many other members of the executive council knew about the alleged goings-on in the Attorney-General's ministry. I wonder if the Attorney General had knowledge of the allegations being made when he said a few days ago that he had complete confidence in the Deputy Attorney-General. These are all questions that must be answered.

MR. BARBER: What did the Premier know?

MR. LORIMER: Yes, what did the Premier know? Did he have knowledge? Did they have knowledge and stand idly by in the hope that nothing would come of it, and in the hope that it would be buried? But, you know, there are many, many other people in this province who have been accused of a variety of crimes — impaired driving, failing to take a breathalyser test. Many of those people have gone through the mill. They've taken their punishment; they've had no favours from high up.

This is a very, very distressing day in the history of this province. It's quite clear what steps the Premier has to take. He must follow the long-established traditions of the British parliamentary system. I was surprised that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) was not here to open the proceedings this morning with a statement. He certainly should have been here. No, it's business as usual. And I was surprised that some other member of the executive council didn't stand up in his place, if the Attorney-General couldn't

[ Page 1327 ]

be here, to make a statement with reference to the exposé that appeared last night. Is this another matter of style of conduct that will be ignored? The many questions raised must be answered, and until those answers are made there must be certain action taken by the Premier of this province. Immediately, he must insist on the stepping aside of the Deputy Attorney-General, of the Attorney-General, and of the former Attorney-General. To do otherwise would be a flagrant disregard for the traditions that have been established over the centuries by the system of parliament in Britain and in this country.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in my place in this debate on the throne speech. I would like at this time to congratulate the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the new Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) who have joined us in the cabinet. Oh, and I apologize to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers); I missed him. However, I'm blessed with having on one side of me a very energetic lady, the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who as Minister of Tourism will I'm sure do an excellent job in representing that industry in the province. She brings a lot of good grace and humour to this bench, which will, I think, make my days a little more pleasant than in the past. On the other side I have a gentleman from Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who brings a fair amount of stability to the other side of my bench, and that will certainly give me guidance as well — maybe keep my comments under control when the debate gets a little heated. I would also like to congratulate the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker.

Before I proceed, I would like to comment on two matters that were raised by the previous speaker. First of all, he mentioned the Deputy Speaker's appointment, and that the member for Delta — one member — would benefit from the bridge that is proposed to go across Annacis Island. Mr. Speaker, there are 75,000-plus people who will benefit from that bridge going across, and that member for Burnaby Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) should recognize that. In shortsightedness he probably won't accept that concept; however, he should recognize that the people of his community and the people of the communities on the other side of the Fraser will certainly benefit from that new bridge.

The second matter, Mr. Speaker, is a serious matter. The member has made remarks concerning the CBC report last night, and has implied a number of things based on a CBC report only. The Premier of this province stood up and stated that it was a very serious matter and advised that the Attorney-General would be making a statement as soon as possible. I would suggest, considering the seriousness of the matter, that when the Premier of the province states that at the earliest opportunity the Attorney-General of this province is going to make a statement, there should be the courtesy extended by the opposition to at least wait until the Attorney General makes that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You know very well where he is, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, I felt that it was my responsibility, as an elected member of this House, to make those comments regarding the last speaker's remarks.

In regard to the opposition's debate which we have had in this House to date, I think it is only fair to say it has been repetitious and boring and it deals, basically, in personal attacks on the Premier and members on the government side of the House. They had stated in the press, for the past several months, that the reason we weren't calling the House is that we weren't prepared to debate such important issues as energy, unemployment and the economy. Mr. Speaker, I have not heard from those members opposite on energy matters, unemployment in this province, or on the economy.

Their attack has been somewhat lacking. Even in the first day during question period they ran out of questions. They have dealt with newspaper articles; they have dealt with "dirty tricks" — and I'd like to come back to that later on.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are all leaving.

HON. MR. HEWITT: They are all leaving. I hope that's not a reflection on my comments or my quality of debate, Mr. Member, but I'll proceed anyway. My colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is listening. I appreciate that. I am pleased to see that there are people in the gallery today because very often we debate down here without too many people listening to what goes on in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the House Leader of the opposition on the first speech in response to the throne speech said: "Free enterprise is a heartless system." That remark sets out the type of philosophy that party has. I would like to deal with the "free enterprise system" and the results that have taken place in the past nine months, which have been reported to the members of this House and to the public through our quarterly financial reports. Let's see whether the private enterprise system is a heartless system.

In the December 1979 nine-month report, minerals had revenues of $471.6 million. In 1978, the nine-month report was $297.4 million, meaning tremendous growth in the economy because of the activity in the mining industry.

The forest industry $379.6 million for the nine months compared to $176 million for nine months, 1978.

Corporation tax: $290 million for the nine months, 1979, compared to $254 million for the nine months ended December 1978 — an additional amount of tax coming from the corporate sector, and rightly so because their revenues are up and they have to pay taxes on their revenues.

Those are factors which indicate to anybody that the economy of this province in the nine months ending December 31, 1979, was expanding, was growing, was stable, was sound; and it shows that the corporate sector, "the private enterprise sector," was contributing, through corporate tax, more dollars to the provincial revenues of this province. The personal income tax, which we face as individuals, for the nine months ended December 31, 1979, was $837 million compared to the December 31, 1978, figure of $900 million. That's a reduction to the personal taxpayer of this province because we reduced the tax points on personal income tax in this province last year.

The social services tax is the one that we've been told about from 1975 on, when we had to raise it to 7 percent and then dropped it back down to 5 percent and now it's down to 4 percent, the second lowest in Canada. The reason we had to take it to 7 percent is because of what we inherited from that party in 1975. Bearing in mind that the revenue from social services tax was $463 million for the nine months, 1979, and

[ Page 1328 ]

$485 million for the nine months ended December 31, 1978, there was a reduction of taxation to people who pay taxes on consumer goods.

We have indicated that we have an economy that is stable and growing. We've indicated that we can reduce taxes because this government has brought in policies to enable the economy to expand and to enable the private enterprise sector to grow, which allows it to pay taxation, which allows us to provide social services.

So let's then look at the social services that have been made available in the expense section of government, which is really what our role is all about; we gather the taxation from the producing sector and provide social services to the people of this province.

Health expenditures for the first nine months in 1979: $970 million compared to $798 million for those nine months to December 31, 1978 — a growth in that sector of over $100 million.

Human Resources: $472 million for the nine months ended December 31, 1979; $426 million for the nine months ended December 31, 1978. More funds provided for social services in this province.

Education, the same thing: $847 million for 1979; $781 million for 1978 — again growth in the future of the people of this province by providing education to them.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) says the private enterprise system is a heartless system. They can't quite grasp that government can't give to you unless it takes from you. If they had their way it would all be government. The government would own industry and commerce, would control the finances, and with that, I suggest, would bring down this province the same way they almost did in the three years 1972 to 1975.

To point that out, look at the expenditures, the deficits and the balanced budgets — or surpluses, if you like to call them that — between 1973 and 1975. We had $278 million overexpended by that government between 1973 and '74; $263 million in 1974 and '75. In the last three or four months of the fiscal year we came in and turned that around because we had to bring in those "heartless policies," but we balanced the budget and had a surplus of $16 million — that's pretty close to balancing it. From then on, with the policies, the legislation and the programs, all aspects of the private sector have generated revenues which have allowed us to maintain a balanced budget us to accumulate a surplus.

The member for Vancouver — I can't remember where she comes from; she lives in Point Grey, but I can't remember where she comes from....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Burnaby somewhere, isn't it? What riding? I want to get it on the record.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown); I think that's the riding. She attacks the surplus of $300 million in the paper. She quotes specific items and points out that this government "is heartless," but she doesn't grasp — or maybe she does but won't admit it — that a $200 million program for low-interest loans for housing helps all levels in this province, all classes of people with rental accommodation, mobile homes, modular homes, multiple dwellings, single-family dwellings; it helps the forest industry and the construction industry. A total cross-section of this province was assisted by that program. As my good colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) says: "You can't fund that type of program with a deficit." That's the reason I think this government will be here for many years to come, because people recognize this.

We talk about small businesses — you know, this government doesn't look at the small business, doesn't assist small business. Well, I'll tell you, that's entirely wrong; statistics indicate it's wrong. Maybe it's through my accounting background that I like to deal with statistics, but I always figure that figures don't lie. Somebody said liars figure but figures don't lie. If you look at the growth in registrations of companies in this province.... These companies that register for business aren't the big corporations — they've been here for years — these are the small and medium-sized businesses. In 1979, 17,600 new B.C. companies incorporated. If you look at '72, '73 ,'74, even 1975, we're looking at fewer than 10,000 companies registered.

So people, industry, the entrepreneur, the individual is coming to this province. He has an idea or concept, and he knows he can have an opportunity to make it work under this government. As a result we're seeing increases of incorporations, of small businesses in this province. I think that's a compliment to the leadership of this government and to this government's policies.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena — and I go back to him because he was their lead-off speaker; he is the opposition House Leader — took it on himself to make comments like "the private enterprise system is heartless." I believe it was also he who raised the point about m.p.g. — miles per gallon, or something like that — but he related it to money, power and greed. I would just say that if you look at money...people forget this but when the NDP came into office, strange as it may seem, they raised the MLA's salary by 100 percent in one fell swoop. Maybe we should repeat that now and again because people should be aware that sometimes what they talk about and what they do are two opposite things.

They talk about power and they are quite prepared to get into bed with special interest groups in this province in order to achieve power. I don't think that is unfair to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), because they know full well that they have aligned themselves with the labour movement on many occasions in this province. They talk about greed. I would suggest that the concept behind that party is to bring the private enterprise system down — to have control by government, to make government all-powerful in the end, and control would be by "a favoured few."

Mr. Speaker, I said I was going to talk about dirty tricks, because this government has taken a tremendous amount of abuse over Lettergate, if you want to call it that, or dirty tricks. But I can give you what I consider dirty tricks of a far greater magnitude than any letter-writing would ever bring to the people of this province, because it misguides the people of the province. I refer to statements that were made during the election campaign in May 1979 regarding natural gas.

The Leader of the Opposition was making statements that were quoted in the paper. People feel that what they read in the paper is accurate and the reporter, in doing his job, feels what the Leader of the Opposition states has been fairly well researched and is fairly accurate.

[ Page 1329 ]

Here is a quote: " 'Selling natural gas at a lower rate has cost $150 million in provincial revenues to British Columbians at a time when schools, hospitals and municipalities were feeling the pinch,' the former Premier said in a rousing speech." He was talking about the fact that we weren't getting the same price as Mexico was, if you remember, in exporting natural gas to the United States. We were getting something like $3.20 per 1,000 cubic feet, and they were getting $3.50. So he said it was costing the taxpayers of this province $150 million, and he said that people were suffering because of it.

Well, I have to tell you that in making those statements he misled the people of this province, because at no time was Mexico getting $3.50 per 1,000 cubic feet for natural gas. As a matter of fact, the main natural gas pipeline was still under construction — it was only 60 miles off the U.S. border. Now I call that a dirty trick. I call that a dirty trick because what happens is the people who read the paper read it and assume that what the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, states is fairly accurate. Let's face it — all politicians may be stretched now and again. In effect he says that this government is taking money from the mouths of people who are in need. I call that a dirty trick.

Uranium mining. You know we have put a moratorium on mining and exploration in this province. However, during the election campaign again the Leader of the Opposition went around this province and stated very clearly that the NDP do not support nuclear power or uranium mining — they are opposed to this type of thing. He stated that many times. Never had that been a policy of the NDP. We questioned him periodically about the fact that if they had national policies for the NDP across this country, then the NDP government in Saskatchewan was sort of out of step with the rest of them. However, that is not the main point I wish to make.

I can tell you that the first exploration permit issued to a company for uranium mining exploration in British Columbia was dated April 22, 1974. They were the government at the time. If there is a policy — and it was a stated policy from year one with the NDP — then how come the permit is issued for mining exploration to a company which was exploring for uranium?

Then we have another dirty trick. It's on a very political issue, one that I am now responsible to administer. It is the Land Commission. This pamphlet is the type of dirty trick, in my opinion, that is pulled off periodically by the opposition party. We in this government dealt with an application of 626 acres in Langley for exclusion from the Land Commission. A decision was made; we decided to take a second look, which is under process at the present time.

Very shortly after that controversy arose, this pamphlet was circulated throughout the Fraser Valley, an attack — and it's a beautiful attack, done with humorous cartoons. It says: "Paving the Farmland Hard to Swallow." It states all the thousands of acres "lost forever." "Stop the Socred Sellout." This is the kind of level and the kind of attack, in my opinion, that is not warranted or called for. When we get a little heated in this House it's because of this type of an approach, which degrades the political system in any province or in any country.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've hit a nerve. I finally got the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to speak up. Let me then deal with the Social Credit "sellout" of agricultural land in this province. When the designation was made in 1974, I believe it was, there were 11,661,600 acres designated in the land reserve. As of October 1979 there are 11,635,204 acres — a difference of about 26,000 acres, or one-quarter of 1 percent change in the total land reserve. The member opposite knows, and the former Minister of Agriculture — who is now in the opposition — knows, that there is a lot of fine-tuning that has to be done, that there are a lot of applications that come in from the Land Commission, the regional districts and individuals, and that the reserves will be adjusted and changed because some lands that were in should not have been and some lands that weren't put in.... Because of the haste that was taken in dropping that reserve on all land, they were not included and now they are coming forward to be included.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I could talk to you about Cottonwood Corner, Mr. Member, if you want to talk about looking after...you know, when you deal with land reserves.

The point I'm making is that they've attacked the government in this pamphlet where they say we now have a system where the politician is involved. But I can tell you that the Land Commission in its operations makes its recommendations on many, many issues and brings forward to the Environment and Land Use Committee their recommendations. You can see by these figures that in the majority of cases they are dealt with. If I look at applications from municipalities or regional districts or the commission to exclude land from the ALR since the inception of what has gone forward under what we call a 9(1), the Land Commission has recommended for exclusion 61,654; the actual amount done by cabinet decision after reviewing it and hearing input was 62,690. That's about 1,000 acres difference in those ones that come before the Environment and Land Use Committee. That, I think, is another indication of a type of a dirty trick. Because of the press they receive or because of the pamphlets they put out, they tend to mislead the people of this province. I find it very unfortunate when that type of approach is taken rather than sticking with the facts.

I'd like to digress for a minute to advise the members of the House that as of this morning I made an announcement that I have appointed a chairman and new members to the Land Commission. The circular will be going out to all members and will, of course, be covered by the press. We have a new chairman by the name of Dr. Mills Clarke, of the Land Commission, who was a former director of the Agriculture Canada Research Station at Agassiz and a coordinator of forage crops research in Ag-Canada in Ottawa. He is a very highly respected man in the field of agriculture.

We have other new appointments: Mr. Elly Framst from the Peace River country; Mr. Joe Rogers from the Okanagan; and a former public employee, whose name I know all members of this House will recognize, Mr. Walter Redel, from Lands, Parks and Housing. Those are the new members.

I look forward to working with these gentlemen. We've increased the size of the Land Commission from five to seven. I know that we'll be able to streamline some of the activities of the Land Commission, and, hopefully, to re-

[ Page 1330 ]

sound to the individuals and to regional districts and municipalities in dealing with some of the applications either for inclusion into or exclusion from the land reserve.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), during his comments while we were dealing with the amendment to the throne speech.... I don't want to touch on that too much because you'll probably rule me out of order. But I want to touch on what he said, and also, if I have the liberty to do so, to express my regret that the opposition didn't allow all members of this House to speak on that resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think it's highly unfortunate. It does indicate the type of approach that the opposition has brought to this House in this session.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development(Hon. Mr. Phillips) stated that this party, from 1975, has turned this province around. I've given statistics to indicate that. There's increased productivity in this province, and, as the statistics indicate, there is less labour unrest. We've increased the social programs, which that party has to recognize, we've balanced those budgets, and we've got a stable provincial economy, which is second only to Alberta's. And I think that's a compliment to our leader, Mr. Speaker. Since I didn't have the opportunity of saying that during the debate on the amendment, l just want to compliment our leader for the leadership he's shown in those areas.

We talked about — and I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) brought this one up — the redistribution, and the fact that changes and whatever.... The comment was made regarding our redistribution, etc. I have to smile, because when I first decided to get into politics, in 1975, at the provincial level, I appeared before the Judge Norris commission. And then I saw the final report. You know, there are two ends to my riding of Boundary-Similkameen — one is Summerland, which used to be in the Premier's riding of Okanagan South, and the other is Grand Forks–Christina Lake which is in my riding. Nothing was done with the Norris report, of course; but when the final recommendations came out, they were basically that they would take the Grand Forks area, which is an historically NDP area, away from me. But in the end, that wasn't done. The final recommendation indicated that I was going to be left with it, so I'm not sure whether or not there was some consideration by that government to not carry on with the recommendation that Judge Norris was trying to make.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You haven't seen it? Well, I'll just tell you what information I've got; I can't help what you haven't seen.

MR. LEA: Have you seen it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I know you probably wouldn't see it, because you're never in your riding; you're always down here. You're never up in your own riding.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not really, because, you see, I'm just giving you an idea of where the judge was making recommendations, and possibly where they weren't really accepted.

If you had the chance it may have been altogether different.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I've hit another nerve. This party — I don't want to carry on too long; I think I'm probably getting close to being out of time — has gone to the people twice in this province. It went in 1975, when the election was called, and it got a mandate. It went to the people in 1979 and got a mandate. And I keep smiling when the opposition over there get very concerned at the fact of numbers and majorities. It's like the federal NDP, where defeat is a win, I don't know how they worked that out. The people have elected this government, and this party is on this side of the House, and it will continue to be on this side of the House, because what we're advocating and what we're carrying out are programs for a sound economy, sound financial management of this province and advanced social programs in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, now there's a challenge. I'm quite prepared to put money on the line, if you are, to meet you on that. I have no doubts in my mind that this party will be back.

MR. LEA: See Dan Campbell and get the betting money.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've got another story to tell, since we're getting off track here. I can remember in the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, when I challenged the Leader of the Opposition, and bet him $100 that he could not prove his statements about natural gas sales from Mexico and the United States. I raised it to $200, to $500, to $1,000 — the end statement was $2,000 — and I never heard a word from the Leader of the Opposition, because he couldn't, and he knew he couldn't.... But that's the kind of statement that I smile about when these people on the other side of the House talk about "dirty tricks."

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Listen, before this House is over, you're liable to find out just how many problems you have with regard to administration of funds. So don't be too vocal there, my friend.

The sound economy of this province, Mr. Speaker, and sound fiscal management, and the advanced social programs, such as SAFER, in this province, the $200 million housing program, the hospital construction and the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation....

Mr. Speaker, they just can't get over that one. They just don't know how to handle that one, because that gave the people of this province some ownership in this province rather than have the government owning the resource development of this province. The list goes on: the highway construction, the ARDSA project under my ministry, urban transportation, denticare, revenue sharing. Those are things that have been done, and will be done in the future, for the

[ Page 1331 ]

betterment of this province, and they're done for two very good and sound reasons. One is sound, strong leadership in this party, and the other is the fiscal management of this government's finances to be able to accomplish those things that needed to be done, because we have the funds with which to do them. So with the type of leadership we have, with the programs that we brought in and the programs we will bring in, this party will be on this side of the House for many years and I'm very pleased to be a part of it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would first ask leave of the House to introduce some students in the gallery.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are 35 students from the English-Canadian Studies program of Vancouver Community College, along with their teacher, Margaret Taylor, in the gallery. They are studying the structure of Canadian government. I wonder if the House would make them welcome.

In rising to respond to the Speech from the Throne I would like to add my voice to that of my colleagues in congratulating you, and all of the new members who have been appointed to the cabinet. I notice, Mr. Speaker, in going through the Speech from the Throne that the topic which I had hoped to cover today got very short shrift in the speech, because what I really want to talk about is the delivery of justice in this province. I notice that in the throne speech the only comment made about the Attorney-General's department is that he is going to turn over the scrutiny of the holiday shopping act to the municipalities. I'm not surprised at that; I'm not surprised that even the Lieutenant-Governor and the Premier recognize that maybe justice is no longer a part of the purview of the Attorney-General's department.

Last night when a group of us were watching that CBC program, we were stunned by what we saw. We started talking about it and we said: "Why are we surprised?" The delivery of justice by Social Credit is done in exactly the same way in which they handle their finance system and their economic system. You protect the rich and you punish the poor. What we saw last night was justice Social Credit style. That's what we witnessed. We saw that the same government which was capable of the dirty tricks and the gerrymander, the same government which has shamed the people of British Columbia right across this country since September 1979 with its actions, was behaving exactly the same way in terms of meting out justice with an uneven hand to the people of this province. So we should not have been surprised, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for North Peace River.

MR. BRUMMET: I was wondering whether the trial has been held; I get the implication that the decision has been reached by that member.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: No! He used to be an inspector of schools. Wasn't he? He didn't do that? I'm glad I was wrong, because I was really worried about the children in the Peace River if you were an inspector of schools.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at what happens to justice in this province if you are poor, if you haven't got the protection of the Deputy Attorney-General, if you're not a friend of the government, if you are not a defeated candidate or indeed if you are not even a member of the government at this time. Let us look at the kind of justice you get. I'm really sorry that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is not here because, as you know, her function in that government is the protection of the vulnerable people in this province. She's supposed to be protecting the poor people in this province.

Where was she, Mr. Speaker, when the justice system in this province was going down the drain because that government over there decided to interfere in that system on behalf of its friends? Mr. Speaker, I hesitate even to use in this House the Anatole France quotation: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, or to beg in the streets and to steal bread." But I think it applies at this time. Where was the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker, when a man by the name of Mr. Stanenov was sentenced to 30 days in jail because he killed a swan in Stanley Park to eat, because he was living on welfare and ran out of money before his welfare cheque came at the end of the month?

That's right, 30 days in jail because he killed a swan to eat, but an unconditional discharge if you jeopardize the lives of other people by having control of a car while you're seriously impaired. What's the difference between those two cases? The difference is that in one instance the person involved was a victim of that government — we're talking about a poor person who stole to eat — and in the other instance that person was a colleague and friend of that government. That's what justice is all about in this province. It's not important what you do. The crime is not important. What is important is that you should have the protection of that government.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I'm speaking in response to the Speech from the Throne. We find that the Lieutenant-Governor, in talking about the Attorney-General's ministry, was very careful not to mention justice or the delivery of justice, but simply to say you no longer have any responsibility for whether your store is open on Sunday or not; that should go to the municipality.

Mr. Speaker, where was the scarlet tanager when a woman who stole a 79-cent comb was sentenced to eight months in jail? Where was the Minister of Human Resources? Where is the Minister of Human Resources when statistics are tabled that show that most of the shoplifting crimes in this province are shoplifting of food, done by people living on welfare, because the pittance with which this government punishes welfare recipients is insufficient for them to eat or to feed their children on?

Where is the minister of justice? Why was there no expenditure for decals, burnper strips, scrolls and buttons, or even food, for these people? Did the Deputy Attorney-General intervene? Does the Deputy Attorney-General ever intervene when the crime we're dealing with is one that affects poor people, when the person involved is poor? Does that government ever intervene? Never, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, how many people in this province are in prison because they cannot pay their bail? What is the population of this province made up of, in terms of its prison inmates? We're told that 90 percent of the women in prison are native Indians. What do you think they're there for? Are

[ Page 1332 ]

they there for impaired driving? Are they there because the Deputy Attorney-General interceded on their behalf? They are there because they are victims of this system; they are there because they are victims either of poverty or of alcohol abuse. We're talking about prostitutes, drug users and shoplifters — no intervention on their behalf, because they're poor, they're female, they've never been Social Credit candidates, defeated or otherwise, and they do not now sit as members of a Social Credit government in this House. So the Minister of Human Resources does not intervene on their behalf; the government does not intervene on their behalf.

A woman in Terrace, Dorothy Smith, was fined $100 or one week in prison for a petty crime. The Minister of Human Resources intervened then; the Minister of Human Resources offered her children foster homes so that she could come down and serve her one week in jail.

That's the kind of intervention we get from the Minister of Human Resources when people who are supposed to be protected by her come up against the criminal justice system in this province. That's the kind of intervention we get. Human Resources offered to pay her way so she could fly down to Oakalla, and they offered to pick up the tab for foster home care for her children. That's the kind of intervention that you get under the Social Credit justice system, which protects the rich and penalizes the poor, in exactly the same way as it does everything else.

Mr. Speaker, why isn't the Attorney-General here to make a statement today? Because it's no big deal to them. It's business as usual. What's so wrong with interfering? Isn't that what Social Credit justice is all about? Why isn't he here — the past Attorney-General or the present Attorney-General?

We have to remind ourselves that it is that same Attorney-General who stood in his place three days ago and told us how very satisfied and impressed he was with the work that the Deputy Attorney-General was doing. Was he aware at that time? Did he know at that time? Is it possible that he could have made that statement with the full knowledge that the Deputy Attorney-General was abusing his office on behalf of his friends and the friends of his government? Is that possible?

Tell me, Mr. Speaker, can you tell me what that government has done since the revelation on the CBC last night of the miscarriage of justice in this province? What has that government done? The government has not done anything because, presumably, the government does not see it as a miscarriage of justice. But we on the opposition side see it as a miscarriage of justice. We see it, and that is the reason why we met last night after we saw that television program, and that's the reason why our House Leader (Mr. Howard) sent a telegram off saying: "Justice must be protected in this province, so seal those offices." Seal those offices!

We entered the chamber this morning fully expecting that the Premier would stand and say that as a result of those revelations, he had fired his past Attorney-General, his present Attorney-General and the Deputy Attorney-General. That's what we expected. Instead, Mr. Speaker, what do we find?

MR. BARRETT: The lawyers laughing.

MS. BROWN: That's right. We find the lawyers laughing, the two Attorneys-General, past, present and possibly future, all absent from the chamber, and we are told that the Attorney-General is viewing the film. He's been viewing it since 10 o'clock and it's nearly 15 minutes to 12. Has he been viewing the film since then? We, the opposition, have been waiting for that government to take some kind of public stand on behalf of the people in this province who do not have the protection of the Deputy Attorney-General because they are not related to him or are not his friends. What are they searching for in their files? How long do they have to view a film before they can stand on the floor of this House and say: "We believe that there has been a serious misuse and abuse of power; we believe that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice; and we are going to do something about it now."? Why haven't they done it? For the same reason that they didn't do anything about those forgers of letters, and for the same reason that they haven't done anything about any other act of dishonesty involved with that government.

In the final analysis, justice in this province rests with the people. That's where the final justice lies. Unless that Premier fires those two Attorneys-General and that Deputy Attorney-General, the people of this province are going to fire him and his government.

My colleague, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who spoke before me asked that the former Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General should step aside while this matter is being investigated and resolved in one way or another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look what they did to Jack Davis.

MS. BROWN: Yes. Not even to their own colleagues do they have an even-handed quality of justice. The Deputy Attorney-General, the present Attorney-General and the former Attorney-General should be treated in exactly the same manner as the former Minister of Energy was treated. Not even among their own colleagues is there any justice. Why didn't the Deputy Attorney-General intervene on his behalf? Isn't he a friend of Social Credit? Was his crime that he is not a defeated candidate? Was that his crime?

I would like to add my voice to that of the other member for Burnaby, and in addition suggest that along with the former Attorney-General, the present Attorney-General and the Deputy Attorney-General, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who has once again failed the poor people of this province, should also resign. If we have those resignations, then we and the people of this province will know that the Premier is serious about cleaning up the mess over there. But until that occurs, when we debate the Speech from the Throne and try to talk about the delivery of justice in this province, it is not going to be possible to use "justice" in the same voice or in the same sentence as we use the words "Social Credit government," because it doesn't happen.

The opposition is determined that the shame that the people of British Columbia have had to suffer since September 1979 because of the behaviour of that government must come to an end. We are not going to relent in our demands that the Premier fire those three people and himself as well.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: May I take this opportunity, as have others, to congratulate the new members in our provincial cabinet: the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and, of course,

[ Page 1333 ]

the recently appointed new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who are now making an excellent contribution to the executive council. Also I'd like congratulate the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson) on his appointment by the Legislature.

Today I'd like to deal with something in the throne speech which has not been touched on in terms of the quality of leadership of this government, but before I do so.... I think we have been exposed here once again to typical rantings and railings in terms of a matter which has just been brought up on a television program. In view of the very responsible statement made by this Premier earlier this afternoon that a statement was going to be made after inquiries by the Attorney-General, in light of what was said at the time, it seems to me that what has just been said by the member who took her seat was quite unnecessary. It could be categorized as the usual NDP form of justice — just a little bit quick. It's sort of like instant justice, instant jury

I don't want in any way to take away from the seriousness of what was said — the Premier made that very clear — but I think, in terms of what was just said, it is a type of instant reaction and justice that doesn't bear credibility. I think the Ayatollah would be interested to hear some of the detailed attitudes of the member who just took her seat, in their form of justice.

We had a good debate on an amendment to the throne speech which raised the question of confidence in leadership. I feel it is unfortunate that other members were not accorded the opportunity to speak on this matter.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, this is another occasion when the procedures in the House have been abused by a cabinet minister. The record shows that 14 members of the government had an opportunity to speak on the amendment....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: Seven of them were cabinet ministers, and if the Premier didn't take the opportunity to speak....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: This is an example of a spurious point of order. It is the kind of abuse of the rules which is fast encouraging the Chair to ask for the standing order under which the member presumes to take the floor.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think most people in British Columbia are well aware of the many capabilities of this Premier, in particular those which have been well debated in terms of fiscal responsibility: the way in which in the early days of this government he dealt with the tremendous financial deficit, the ICBC chaos and other matters of that kind. Currently he certainly deserves considerable credit — and has nationally received this, in such matters as the new BCRIC program, the low-interest loan program — national accord — and, of course, more recently a gigantic enterprise in Vancouver, most encouraging to their future economy, B.C. Place.

What I would like to deal with today is his tremendous contribution in terms of dealings with our national government. This is not just my notion, Mr. Speaker. After taking government in late 1975 he immediately, within hours of our appointment, dispatched a group of us to Ottawa to deal with the national government on issues of that time. That is what I call leadership.

Secondly, within a matter of weeks he organized well-researched presentations at first ministers' meetings in terms of the economic position of British Columbia and in terms of constitutional programs. You see, when we took office in 1975 federal-provincial relations were at the lowest ebb they had been at for a great many years. In record time, through these well-prepared and well-presented proposals for constitutional reform and economic change, the Premier of this province established himself as a leading national figure on these issues.

It is not just for me to say this. Many other well-regarded writers have said it. Here is what Keith Spicer said in the Montreal Gazette on February 15 last year:

''Waving a reproachable position paper at Canada's ten other first ministers, Premier Bennett seemed the only provincial man at last week's Ottawa summit on the constitution to plead for more than money or jurisdictions.

"Bennett realizes he cannot shrink 2,910 miles between Ottawa and Victoria, but he hopes to reduce emotional distances by giving British Columbia a sense of representation and belonging in Canada. His device: a new federal Senate, where a recognized Pacific region, British Columbia, would send provincially chosen delegates in numbers equal to those from either the Prairie, Ontario, Quebec or Atlantic regions.

"Canadians outside British Columbia should not underestimate either the depth of the Premier's conviction about a five-region country or the accuracy with which he reflects British Columbia's outlook on Canada."

Mr. Speaker, don't listen to me. Here is another gentleman, quoted from Report on Confederation, the July-August 1978 issue, which I think points up a contrast between this provincial Premier and the former one. Headline: "A Confederation Debater With the Best of Them."

"The Premier of British Columbia has put a major effort into developing constitutional proposals tailored to British Columbia's economic interests. He shifted B.C. from odd man out to fifth man in at federal provincial meetings, calling for political allocation according to five regions, of which B.C. Is one."

That is Peter Calamai in People magazine, quoting from Report on Confederation.

In contrast, here's another paragraph:

"The next three years under the New Democrats didn't see much improvement. The scrappy Dave Barrett, as NDP Premier, riled Trudeau by telling him to 'fuddle duddle,' and alienated his fellow Premiers by blabbing confidential discussions to the press."

That's not my category of what I would call leadership, Mr. Speaker.

And it says:

"Then along came Bill. Bennett was the only Premier not to speak from a prepared text in lead-off speeches at the federal-provincial summit. However,

[ Page 1334 ]

it adds up economically. British Columbia is now an activist in the Confederation debate. No more empty chair, no splendid isolation; there is a patriotic head above the patriotic heart behind the British Columbia wallet."

That's Peter Calamai, Mr. Speaker. Here's another quote from Peter Calamai:

"Under Premier Bill Bennett the province has put more effort into holding Confederation together than it has for decades past."

That's leadership. "The scrappy Dave Barrett" — I won't repeat the previous expression — "alienated his fellow Premiers by blabbing confidential discussions to the press." That's leadership, is it, Mr. Speaker?

Here's an article in Barron's Weekly by Mitchell Gordon, August 1, 1977:

Premier Bennett has vastly improved Victoria's relations with Ottawa. True, Prime Minister Trudeau's Liberal government probably is attuned more closely to Socred policies than it was to the NDP, if not to the degree a Conservative administration in Ottawa would be. But Bennett says he's made a special effort to brief himself on Ottawa's programs, and British Columbia businessmen seem impressed.

" 'We've received more federal grants this year than ever before,' says a top career official of the British Columbia Ministry of Finance. He ticks off a few of the bigger bundles from Ottawa: $81 million to B.C. Rail — its first grant in over 20 years; $80 million for post-secondary education in the province; $85 million for a sweeping five-year program of agricultural and industrial development; $10 million, also on a matching basis, to help fund a feasibility study on the vast northeastern British Columbia coal reserves, and, for the first time, an $8 million subsidy to B.C. Ferries. Most British Columbia businessmen seem to agree that British Columbia, plainly marching to a different drummer after its fling with folly, is once again headed in the right direction."

And here's another, Mr. Speaker, from the Financial Post, February 11, 1978, by the columnist, John Schreiner: "An exceedingly serious-minded man, Bennett knows that province-firstism no longer is good enough. In the 1950s the world came knocking on British Columbia's door. Going into the 1980s, it is the other way around. That's why the Premier, who is deeply concerned with the lack of national industrial strategy, has developed policies for presentation to the first ministers."

That's what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Look at these documents presented in well-researched papers at the first ministers' meeting — "The British Columbia Position Towards An Economic Strategy For Canada," our "Constitutional Proposals" presented at the first ministers' conference in October 1978. He received terrific accord, and this province owes him a debt for the effort which was put into these presentations on behalf of the province of British Columbia. He was not simply going down and dealing from the seat of his pants and not according proper respect.

Just look at the results in terms of federal-provincial contracts and agreements reached in the past four and a half years. Just to mention a few: a new ARDSA agreement to encourage development of the agricultural sector and food processing industry in rural British Columbia, a new contract signed in July 1977; a new youth employment agreement, signed on April 1, 1979; a new crop insurance agreement, signed in April 1978; a new farm labour agreement, for assistance to farms by providing a farm manpower program, signed in April 1978 — all new agreements, Mr. Speaker — a new British Columbia-Canada agreement for the demonstration and development of energy conservation, a five-year program, signed in May 1979; a new Salmonid Enhancement Program, involving many hundreds of millions of dollars over a 10- to 15-year period, formally signed on March 2, 1979; a new Fraser River estuary plan, signed in 1979.

There was a new Intensive Forest Management Program signed in May 1979 which is extremely important to this province; a new industrial development subagreement, a five-year program, signed in 1977; a new Travel Industry Subsidiary Agreement signed in 1978 for a five-year program, terrifically important to this province; and, of course, several agreements under the NHA proposals with our national government, including a new contract covering an Assisted Rental Program master agreement signed on April l, 1977.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker: the Community Services Program, signed in April 1979; a new Neighbourhood Improvement Program under the National Housing Act; and, of course, a new Ferry Subsidy Agreement, never before obtained; a new Northwest Rail Agreement for $79 million. And I might say that during the course of this Premier's leadership arrangements with Ottawa were finalized on established programs which had gone on for years and were regenerated into one program involving tax points and cash. That's a very important program finalized during this Premier's office.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's not just me saying that, a lot of responsible columnists say that.

Do you realize the job he has done to improve federal-provincial relations between this province and Ottawa? I think the tacit indication of this is recently, after the election.... His responsible response to this in terms of the new government which takes office was: "We're in a position to do business down there." That's not based on any past prejudice, and we're going to look very strongly to Ottawa for assistance in important programs that will go forward under this Premier, Mr. Speaker.

So we know that we have, in him, sound leadership. He is a capable leader of the largest enterprise in the province of British Columbia. He is responsive to needs of all segments of British Columbia. He is a statesman, not a buffoon. He makes mistakes just like we all do — you can't accomplish anything without making a few of those — but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this province realize the quality of his leadership, that he is in fact the best Premier this province has ever had, he is a statesman, and he certainly has the support of all of the members on this side of the House, without any question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in contrast I'd just like to mention a matter raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). He talked the other day, along with the matter he dealt with in terms of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), about farmland taxation. I only want to bring this forward because he mentioned the hardship of some constituent of his resulting from a change in farm-

[ Page 1335 ]

land taxation in which this person's taxes went way up — an elderly individual. Perhaps the member, with respect, hasn't really checked very closely, because he referred to this as a secret matter, a secret order-in-council passed when the Legislature was not in session, and said that it was typical of this government and so on.

I could go on on this in great detail, but I don't intend to, except to say that most of what he said was simply not according to the facts. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke indicated that this order was passed when the House was not in session. That's not true. The order he's referring to, introducing the new standards for farmland taxation, was passed on June 21, 1979, when this Legislature was in full session. He said it was a secret matter. What poppycock! That matter was well publicized. What utter poppycock! That matter was well publicized for at least 12 months before and introduced in this House in amendments to the Assessment Act, so I really want to inform the member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he would do a better job and more justice to his constituents if he would help them, particularly elderly people, in pursuing what is available to them under the taxation acts.

For instance, I'm informed that when this person was assisted by the authority to make proper application, he did in fact receive the benefit of the farmland classification, and that his taxes on his home property, after deduction of the homeowner grant, would up at $1, as they had been before. So I'm only saying that the member, possibly, might be better advised to try to assist a constituent in those measures that were available to him. Perhaps I could send this classification over to him so that he can understand that it was well publicized and is well documented in this House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Don't send them anything they have to read.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Okay. You'd have to be able to read to be able to figure it out.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude my remarks. I wanted once again to remind us all of the statesmanship and the leadership we have, how important it is to this province.

I know that we have before us a throne speech which we will soon be deciding whether to support. After careful consideration I've decided to support the throne speech. I've read it carefully several times. I'm going to look forward to the budget speech too.

In any event the throne speech — after all, it was referred to as an empty document — is just loaded with all sorts of plans and programs that this government has ready to go. It refers to the low-interest mortgage program, the B.C. Place, Transpo '86, the new provincial highways policy for municipalities, the Annacis Island crossing. It's all in there. The undertaking to rationalize the financing of the British Columbia Railway is very much needed. The throne speech says we're going to improve the safety regulations for occupancy of buildings. This is something that's anticipated by anybody involved in ownership and construction of buildings. A new family and child services act is referred to in the throne speech. And, of course, last but not least in a short list of items is the new dental care assistance program.

Mr. Speaker, I needn't repeat this: I'm going to support this document when the time comes. I wouldn't be surprised to see some members opposite, when they really have a look at it, follow this course as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we recognize the next speaker, hon. members, although the scope of debate under the reply to the Speech from the Throne is very wide, I would like to warn the House that the House has expressed itself already on the amendment question. We should try to avoid recanvassing again the question which has already been decided. As long as members are cognizant of this, I think they can use it as a guiding factor in their content.

MR. BARBER: It's understandable that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) would attempt to debate the amendment to the motion, having failed to rise to his feet during the proper time to do so.

We've heard from the government this nonsense about closure. It was and it is a transparent ruse to cover up their ineptness and their mishandling of that debate. The only reason they're talking about the absurd notion that somehow the opposition can bring in closure, a concept brand new in the British parliamentary system, is because their defence of that Premier collapsed, their debate fell apart, their timing was wrong. They had no evidence to present, and they spoke when they did with no conviction. That's why they wanted more time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I notice that since the member has taken the floor, the mood of the House has changed appreciably. It is perhaps because inflammatory language is being used. I would recommend that perhaps the member, in choosing his vocabulary, would seek to be a little more moderate. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am, indeed, a most moderate member of the opposition who observes in a most kindly way the fact that the reason the government invents this ridiculous notion that the opposition closed debate is that their own debate failed and they wanted more time. By the time the debate had elapsed according to the rules of this House, they had run out of material, the defence was weak and lamentable, and they discovered by the end of that day that, in fact, true to form, the opposition had won that particular debate. So they wanted more time.

Mr. Speaker, referring to the comments of the Provincial Secretary, this government, the government of Seaboard, the government of the Princess Marguerite, the Rupert, the Surrey, and all of the other mistakes it's made, realized that they were losing the debate and wanted to go into overtime. Well, any incompetent losing team wants overtime to try and make up. Any team that can't play the game properly wants overtime to try and correct their mistakes. This opposition obeys the rules of the House. There was no closure. The rules were applied fairly and reasonably, as you always applied them to us when we were in government. Of course, they lost the debate.

It should be observed, Mr. Speaker, in further comment on the Provincial Secretary's remarks, that apart from the absurdity of the government's claim of closure, they've forgotten to tell us that the following persons, in fact, did speak. According to Hansard, Hon. Mr. McGeer, Hon. Mr. Mair, Hon. Mr. Phillips, Mr. Mussallem, Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm, Mr. Strachan, Mr. Ritchie, Hon. Mr. Waterland, Mr. Brummet, Hon. Mrs. Jordan, Mr. Hyndman, Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Davis and Mr. Kempf spoke in defence of the government, and they tell us they didn't have enough time.

[ Page 1336 ]

The only reason they wanted extra time was to make up for the time they wasted. The only reason they needed to go into overtime was because they lost. They lost the debate. They had no evidence, no material, they spoke with no conviction and, of course, they had no success. Why else do they want to go into overtime? They had 14 speakers.

The House might also remember, Mr. Speaker, that you were most fair and most impartial. It wasn't that the Speaker allowed 20 of us to speak and only 14 of you. The House should be reminded that the Speaker, fair and impartial, followed the traditional procedure in this House. He alternated in his choice of speakers, choosing one from their side, one from ours, the next from theirs and then from ours, back and forth. If they had wanted more speakers, I suppose each of them could have spoken for a shorter period of time, thus speeding the debate. If they wanted more speakers, they could have challenged the impartiality of the Chair and said: "You're not picking enough of us to speak." We all know what the rules are. We all know when the debate is scheduled to end. Mr. Speaker, you're not fair," they could have said. But, of course, they didn't do that, because that is as ridiculous as their argument about closure.

You were fair, the debate alternated within the rules, precisely as it should, from one side of the House to the other. Indeed, at the end of that debate, 14 speakers had wasted their time putting up a lamentable and half-hearted defence of a lamentable and not entirely hearted Premier. If that government couldn't say what they wanted to say in all of that time, with all of those speakers, it is only because they had nothing to say; they had no defence; they had no excuse; they had nothing at all to offer.

In this part of the throne speech debate the opposition is pursuing this morning, the question of justice and the administration of it in British Columbia.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Afternoon.

MR. BARBER: It is now afternoon, I am informed by Mr. Rogers. We are discussing whether or not it is possible for the people of British Columbia to have confidence in the administration of justice under Social Credit. Some people remember the 707 days that another Social Credit government sat on a notorious case in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were mewling and puking in your mother's arms then.

MR. BARBER: Well, we all have to grow up sometime. At least I did. I'm pleased to admit that I was a very young fellow when it all occurred, but I'm also pleased to observe that having spent a fair bit of time in the educational institutions of this province, I've had an opportunity to read something of the political history of this province. It is not unheard of for Social Credit justice to favour Social Credit friends. Why else did Mr. Bonner sit on the Sommers' case for 707 days before taking the action which any honourable Attorney-General would have taken?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARBER: Order? If you want to debate the Sommers' case, go ahead. Of course you don't.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I suggest that we return to the regular practice. The member will address the Chair, other members not interrupting him. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue in our debate today on the question of the administration of justice in British Columbia by pointing out the peculiar history that Social Credit has always had in dealing with the legal problems of its members and its friends. When the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Williams) returns to his place — we haven't seen him all morning, but he's been on television, I understand, not accepting his duty in the House, but manufacturing a duty to television — we hope he will be prepared, in what we anticipate will be his remarks, to answer a few questions that we put now and that were put previously, last evening, on the news report broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The government, this morning, would have us believe that they knew nothing at all about the latest scandal into which they have plunged until 6 o'clock yesterday evening. Well, that's just not true. This government had been warned, we have just learned this morning, as early as February 5 of this year that this matter was under investigation. I would observe at this moment, Mr. Speaker, that if the Attorney General or any member of that government even attempts to claim that they knew nothing until 6 o'clock yesterday evening, then they are telling this House something which is simply not true. Indeed, any member who spoke this morning and claimed that the reason they couldn't reply was because they had no notice, they were uninformed in advance and, therefore, could not prepare a reply, should know now that they were, I'm sure inadvertently, saying something that is not true.

When the Attorney-General speaks, I wonder if he might confirm that at approximately noon, February 5, 1980, he received a phone call from Mr. Donald Winterton, the chief of police of the city of Vancouver. And when the Attorney General speaks, might he also confirm, as we are informed just this morning, as follows: Mr. Winterton had been advised of the investigation into that ministry. Mr. Winterton had met on February 5 with an investigative journalist from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Mr. Winterton had evidently been apprised of the questions that were being asked, the inquiries that were being followed and the implications that were becoming evident. Mr. Winterton — one responsible law officer, at least — understood the grave implications of those questions and of the evidence with which he was familiar.

It is a pretence, we are informed, for that government to claim that they have been innocent and ignorant until 6 o'clock yesterday evening. We are advised that at noon, February 5, 1980, the chief of police of the city of Vancouver phoned the Attorney-General of British Columbia — if I may use his name, so that there is no confusion, Mr. Williams — and informed him directly, clearly and explicitly of the questions that were being raised about the conduct of the Deputy Attorney-General. Mr. Winterton, it would appear — the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) leaves to inform the Attorney-General, who's doing whatever it's necessary to do in the office at these times — correctly and properly informed the Attorney-General that the CBC was pursuing a certain line of investigation regarding his deputy.

[ Page 1337 ]

What was Mr. Williams' reply? We are informed that he told Mr. Winterton: "If you or the CBC have anything against Mr. Vogel, you should contact me immediately." That is, I understand, the import of what he said. I gather that that is nearly verbatim of what he said, at least according to Mr. Winterton. That's from the chief of police.

I hope that the government will not attempt — they have been forewarned now not to do so — to convince anyone that as of 6 o'clock last night they knew nothing of the case. There is further evidence that not only were they informed in advance and not only was the Attorney-General apparently negligent in his duties of office, but another meeting took place about which it appears the Attorney-General knew.

What I am trying to do at this moment, in discussing the responsibility of this government to administer justice evenhandedly in British Columbia, is to observe that it appears that the senior law enforcement officer in this province, the Attorney-General, has known for more than a month that these investigations were underway. He was informed so by the chief of police of the city of Vancouver, whose integrity I expect will not, at least today, be questioned by the gentlemen opposite. We are informed that the Attorney-General knew a month ago. The damning part is that it appears further that the Attorney-General, on his own initiative, did nothing to pursue the investigation based on the information provided to him by the chief of police. He did nothing.

Is it because the Attorney-General dismissed the chief of police as a crank, as a man who couldn't possibly know what he was talking about, and as someone whose credibility could not be relied upon? Or is it because the Attorney-General hoped against hope that the investigation conducted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would get nowhere and would never be aired?

It's necessary for the Attorney-General, when he comes in here, to answer the questions that we raise now. If he was indeed informed by the chief of police on February 5, why is it that only a month later, and only more than a month later, do we hear from him on the subject? Why is it that he was apparently negligent in upholding the duties of his office? And, of course, at this hour we have yet to hear from him.

It wasn't just the phone call from the chief of police which apprised the Attorney-General on February 5 that something apparently was wrong within the Ministry of the Attorney General.

At the Vancouver Club on December 12, 1978, a meeting took place. We are advised that the Attorney-General of the day was informed of that meeting. We are further informed that on December 12, 1978, the meeting took place between Mr. Vogel, Deputy Attorney-General, unnamed senior prosecutors in the Crown counsel's office in the city of Vancouver and unnamed officials of the city of Vancouver police. We are informed that at that time, Mr. Vogel heard complaints about his alleged interference in the case of Wendy King. We are informed that at that time, December 12, 1978, Mr. Vogel was advised that the prosecutorial and the police officials considered his behaviour and conduct to be partial, to be inappropriate and to be questionable. We are further informed that the then Attorney-General was himself told of this meeting and of the charges, groundless or not, that were made then by senior prosecutors and senior police officers in the city of Vancouver.

It is important, is it not, to ask what the then Attorney General did upon being apprised of this meeting. We hope to hear today from the then as well as the now Attorneys General whether or not they upheld the duties of their office when receiving phone calls from the chief of police of Vancouver, and when apprised of meetings that took place, under conditions of some urgency, between and among the Deputy Attorney-General, senior prosecutors and senior police officers.

One wonders what legal advice the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is currently providing to the former Minister of Transportation and Highways.

We are further informed that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) received a letter — I do not at this hour have the date — from a gentleman in Vancouver who made a claim, which may or may not have been valid, but which the Attorney-General did see fit to reply to. According to the letter received by the Attorney-General, Mr. Vogel and a senior RCMP officer are alleged to have visited the home of then Justice John Farris concerning the Wendy King prosecution.

According to that informant such a meeting did take place at the home of Justice Farris. Let me restate that we ourselves have no independent knowledge that such a meeting did take place. But it is interesting to note what the Attorney-General did on that occasion. It would appear that they did not see fit to act on information that was provided at the Vancouver Club on December 12, 1978. It appears that the now Attorney-General did nothing whatever in reply to the information received from the chief of police of the city of Vancouver on February 5 this year. However, he did reply to another letter. In that letter, we are informed, he said he was entirely satisfied that there was no truth to such a claim, no truth to support such allegations, no evidence whatever worthy of dealing with.

There is a contradiction here in the behaviour of the senior law enforcement officers of this province. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation this morning, at no time did the Attorney-General, by himself or by instructing any of his officers, seek to pursue the information that the CBC had as early as February 5 this year. At no time did he see fit to uphold the requirements of his office by making inquiry into whatever it was that the CBC informed the chief of police about. On that instance they appear to have done nothing. In the other instance at the Vancouver Club they appear to have done nothing. So in two cases out of three they achieved nothing, did nothing and upheld nothing as far as it would appear the correct pursuit of inquiry and justice might occur in British Columbia.

However, in a third case the Attorney-General apparently did see fit to pursue the matter, at least sufficiently so that he could write to the correspondent and say that he was satisfied that there was no truth to the claim that Mr. Vogel and the senior RCMP officer met at the home of Justice Farris.

On one occasion out of three he pursues the matter; on two occasions out of three he appears not to. Why should that be? What is the difference among the three bodies of information apparently provided the former and current Attorneys General? We hope this afternoon, if he sees fit to come into the House, as he has evidently seen fit to talk to the television, to have answers to those questions. They are important questions because they suggest, it would seem, a pattern of negligence, a pattern of neglect of duty and of responsibility.

Yesterday evening the official opposition, at least, was sufficiently concerned about the matter that the leader of the official opposition called an emergency meeting of our caucus. At that time we made no public statement whatever

[ Page 1338 ]

as to the merits, if any, of the CBC case. Rather, we were concerned that evidence which may be material in the outcome of those charges should be protected.

It was, we think, a responsible thing to ask Chief Justice Nemetz if he would order the physical sealing of the files and offices of the three persons named in the CBC report. Now that would not have been necessary if something else had occurred on February 5. Is it not conceivable that a responsible Attorney-General would, having been informed by the chief of police of the city of Vancouver that very afternoon, have himself or another senior law enforcement officer — but not the Deputy Attorney-General — immediately ask for a meeting with the investigative journalists of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who were handling the matter?

Mr. Speaker, does it not occur to you that that would have been responsible and prudent? Does it not occur to you that had the Attorney-General acted on the information of the chief of police at that date and contacted the CBC, indeed last night's program may never have been aired?

Let's look at the best possible case for the government. Let's pretend that Mr. Donald, the prosecutor, never wrote to Hon. Mr. Gardom, the Attorney-General. Let's pretend that no such correspondence took place and that no such allegations could have been made last night. Let's pretend as well that no person signed affidavits and that no persons claimed that certain charges of impaired driving, dealt with in a peculiar way, had any merit whatever. Let's pretend as well that there were no witnesses to be interviewed last night by the CBC, no documents to be shown by the CBC, no reports of meetings to be discussed by the CBC. Let's put it as the best possible case for the government, and imagine for a moment that the CBC's case is made of whole cloth and nothing real. The government is hoping today, desperately, that that is the case. The fact remains — and it is no conjecture at all — that had the Attorney-General the wit and the sense of responsibility enough, he would on February 5 have immediately attempted to assess the information provided him by the chief of police of Vancouver.

Now, I wish to state again, Mr. Speaker, that we were apprised of that telephone call only this morning; the report comes directly, we are informed, from the chief of police himself. Should it be that the chief of police is, in some fashion, misinformed and does not in fact recall a phone call from the Attorney-General, Hon. Mr. Williams, then, of course, we expect to hear that from the Attorney-General today, because it is a most serious matter with most serious implications. However, if the phone call took place and if, as we are advised this morning by the CBC, no attempt whatever was made to find out what information the CBC had, then there is additional reason to believe that while this whole mess is being examined, the present Attorney-General must step aside from office.

In the British parliamentary system, for which the official opposition has the deepest respect, it is traditional, is it not, Mr. Speaker, that when evidence of this sort is presented, most people in high office recognize the importance to themselves, as well as to the system, of having it appear not even for a minute that they are sitting in judgment on their own case. But if this phone call was made on February 5, then it would appear that this very morning the Attorney-General of this province has been indeed sitting in judgment on his own case, and he has no business doing so.

Let me say it again: if the chief of police's information is not correct, we will be pleased to have that information made public and that statement corrected by the Attorney-General. However, if it is correct, surely even this government in the middle of all these scandals, this whole sordid mess associated with the Social Credit Party for the last seven months in this province, even that government blundering and reeling and staggering from one scandal to the next, will finally accept their duty. I would like as well for the Attorney General, if he speaks today.... He only has 20 minutes left. I hope he realizes the deadline that this House observes, unless again you're going to ask for more overtime today because he hasn't done his job this morning.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're on your feet.

MR. BARBER: I'm on my feet and he's not in his chair. If he wanted to speak I would yield. If he were in this House and asked me to yield to him to make a statement, I would do it instantly, and you know it. But he's not here, and neither is the past Attorney-General and neither is the Premier, and neither is the legal counsel to the former Minister of Transport. I hope he will, as well, address another question.

If there is evidence to sustain the case of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that there was political interference in three cases before the courts, then it is important that we examine what happened to a fourth case that the RCMP and a regional prosecutor thought should be taken to the courts, but never was. Every member of this House knows that as long as justice is not done for the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), as long as his name cannot be cleared because the ordinary proceedings of justice were not followed, then that member will suffer for years under the the unresolved allegations made against him by Mr. Friesen. If that case had been allowed to go to court without the interference of the Attorney-General's ministry, it may well be that that member would have been cleared, exonerated and proven innocent today; and that would have been fair. If it had gone to court and his innocence had been established, that would have been reasonable and fair and, indeed, that member may well have been a member of the executive council today. But because there was, it seems, interference in that case as well, justice was not served and was not done to that member.

I hope that today the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) who has 16 minutes left to speak in this House, will tell us whether or not he is still satisfied that his ministry acted appropriately to meet the reasonable requirement for natural justice which the member for Central Fraser Valley deserves to have met. Because if not, then people, after last night's revelations, will inevitably ask the questions themselves that we've asked today. If there was interference in three other cases, mightn't there have been interference in another, and another, and another? How many more exposés will the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or BCTV, or anyone else, do, before we can be satisfied that this government understands the necessity of the utterly impartial administration of justice, and appoints people adequately qualified?

How much longer do the people of British Columbia have to continue to labour under the doubt that their government has been entirely honest? How much longer do they have to wonder whether or not the leaders of that government have been telling the whole truth concerning the entire dirty tricks affair, and all of its aspects? How much longer do they have to wonder whether or not we are seeing in British Columbia what the people in the great nation to the south of us saw for

[ Page 1339 ]

two years, before, finally, almost the whole truth came out, and the man who should have resigned at long last did? Why doesn't the government have the guts to level with the people of British Columbia, to tell us who it was in their employ who forged the letters, who it was in their employ who listened to the tapes, who it was in their employ who refused to file honest and complete declarations of election expenses, who it was in their employ who knew about, engineered, complied with all of those other doings? Who condoned it? Who inspired it? Who was responsible?

Most people understand that if in September last year the Premier had said, "You're right, things occurred that are not consistent with the expectations of the people of British Columbia concerning elections; I have today requested the resignations of the following people," then the whole sordid mess would have been over in a week. But because they stonewalled, delayed, refused, covered up, backpedalled and did everything they could to avoid being responsible, it wasn't ended in a week or a month or two or three or four or five or six. We're going into the seventh month, and it's still not over.

Is there any point at which they will learn that the people of British Columbia would have given them credit for being honest and for admitting mistakes? Is there any point at which they will accept that the people of British Columbia are fair-minded and are willing to hear from people who say: "Yeah, you're right, I hired a guy who handed out thousand dollar bills, I hired another guy who forged letters, I hired another guy who forged cheques; I was wrong to hire them, they were wrong to do it, they're gone, I apologize."? At what point will they realize the fundamental obligation of government to be truthful with its own people?

There isn't much time left for them to be truthful, because now it would appear that certain legal events are underway which may further and probably irreparably undermine the stature of that government in the eyes of all of the people of British Columbia.

They've had a month to act on the CBC's information. On February 5, the Attorney-General, it would appear, received that information from the chief of police of the city of Vancouver. If he had taken a week, or two weeks, or even three, to inquire fully into the matter, we would understand that, and there would be no problem. However, just a few days ago the report of Justice Seaton came down. In part, that report observed, in regard to another matter, that the Deputy Attorney-General had acted inappropriately. Knowing all of that, having been advised of the meeting in the Vancouver Club, having responded to correspondence that alleged yet another apparent interference, and having received the phone call from the chief of police of the city of Vancouver, even in the face of all that, this Attorney-General still saw fit to stand up and say that he thought the work of his deputy was just outstanding. By whose standard is that kind of work outstanding? I argue, Mr. Speaker, that it is not by the standard of the people of British Columbia that we find such work outstanding.

If I may conclude, Mr. Speaker, had the Attorney General acted on the information he received more than a month ago, it is likely, assuming the government's defence is correct, that the program last evening would never have been broadcast and none of this would have occurred. Had he acted responsibly then, and had he seen fit to deal with the material presented by the CBC, and had he demonstrated a month ago that there was nothing to it and the story was wrong, that would have been fair and reasonable and appropriate and no one would have challenged it.

What we challenge is the apparent neglect of duty and the apparent neglect of office. And what we trust is that, after today, there will be no more attempt on the part of that government to cover up a single thing, that they will have learned from the mistakes of the last half year, and will come clean with the people of British Columbia. We count on the further fact that, after today, they will not pretend that members of that executive council had no advance warning of yesterday evening's broadcast, because we now know they did.

We think that because the former Attorney-General apparently knew about it as of December 12, 1978, and because the current Attorney-General apparently knew about it as of February 5 this year, and because self-evidently neither of them did anything about it at all, they should step aside for the duration of this latest Socred mess.

Further and finally, the Deputy Attorney-General must also himself today stand aside until it is all cleared up, or else the name of that government will never be cleared.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate on this Speech from the Throne and to take this opportunity to support the Speech from the Throne and the plans and priorities of the government and the Premier of British Columbia.

I have a number of things that I would like to comment on but the time is waning and the hour for adjournment is getting closer. I would like to have a full opportunity to talk about the support that I have for the Premier and the government. So I would like to take this opportunity to adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I wonder if the Attorney-General is going to make the statement that we anticipated.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to matters which were publicly disclosed last evening in a telecast over CBC news, and which I gather have been discussed at some length, but with some inaccuracy, in the House today, I wish to advise you and the members of this House that, as Attorney-General, I recognize fully the serious nature of the allegations which were made, touching upon the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. R.H. Vogel. Whether those allegations are true or false, or whether they are partly true and partly false, nonetheless, the impact of them upon the administration of justice in this province and in this country cannot be ignored or underestimated, and is being neither ignored nor underestimated by me.

This morning, when I had the opportunity for the first time of viewing the full program — I saw parts of an edited version late last night — I immediately undertook steps to conduct a full and complete review of all of the allegations and the matters which surround those allegations. And I wish to advise this House that at the end of that review I will make a full statement to this House and take such other action as is indicated.

[ Page 1340 ]

In the interim, and because of the serious nature of these charges, the Deputy Attorney-General this morning requested me to grant him a leave of absence and to remove from him the responsibilities for the discharge of the powers and duties of his office. I have responded to that request a few moments ago, and I have, in his stead, vested those powers and duties in Assistant Deputy Attorney-General Dennis Sheppard.

In taking these actions, I have noted the remarks made this morning by the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. McDonald). I wish to say simply that that member, who was the Attorney-General of this province, either misunderstands the special responsibilities cast upon the Attorney-General, and the burden therewith, or has forgotten them, or has chosen, for whatever reasons he deems appropriate, to ignore them at this time. Therefore I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no intention on my part to stand down or to abdicate the responsibilities which are cast upon me as Attorney-General.

I have, in the course of the past few hours, had occasion to hear on the speaker in my office some of the comments made by some members in debate. When I have the opportunity to consider the full report of that debate, I may have something further to say, but I wish to make this one thing clear: the matters which were disclosed last night in the CBC telecast were not matters of which I had had any prior knowledge from any source whatsoever. Two of the cases referred to had been identified to me as likely to be covered in such a telecast, but the specific details of the allegations were unknown to me until I saw the telecast this morning.

Being aware of two of the cases which might likely be referred to in that telecast, by reason of communications to me from officials of the ministry, which came, I am informed, from a CBC employee, and from other correspondence which I have received, I requested the opportunity on Wednesday of this week to have an agent of mine view the material in advance of its publication.

As I indicated yesterday to the press, the purpose of that request was not in any respect to interfere with the right of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast whatever they thought fit, but solely for the purpose of making certain that the matters of which I was aware were dealt with accurately. As I say, the matters referred to, the details of the allegations appearing last night, were not then in my knowledge.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, the allegations, as the Attorney-General knows, are broader than the allegations which attach to Mr. Vogel. We've made that clear, and it's a very obvious thing. I can't appreciate the Attorney-General's reference that I did not understand the position of Attorney-General. I understand that, as was said by Harry Truman, the buck stops, in these matters, on the Attorney-General's desk, and that responsibility cannot be sloughed off down the lower ranks of a department or out into the police, or anywhere else, as has happened so frequently in this province in the last few months and in the last two years. So I can only say that we are not satisfied with the statement of the Attorney-General.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:03 p.m.