[ Page 3807 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministry of Tourism Act (Bill 53). Hon. Mrs. Jordan.

Introduction and first reading –– 3807

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 125: minister's office –– 3807

Mr. King

Municipal Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 54). Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 3813

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act –– 1980 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr.

Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 3814

Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act (Bill 63). Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 3814

Mineral Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 62). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 3814

Utilities Commission Act (Bill 52). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 3814

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 55). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 3815

Holiday Shopping Regulation Act (Bill 56). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 3815

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 125: minister's office –– 3815

Mr. Davis

Mr. Barber

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, this weekend Hon. Speaker Schroeder enters the hospital for a very serious operation, and if it is your wish I will be most happy to express to him personally your very best wishes for every success in that operation.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF TOURISM ACT

Hon. Mrs. Jordan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Ministry of Tourism Act.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 125: minister's office, $212,051.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the statements made yesterday by the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). As you know, I introduced the estimates of the ministry yesterday with reference to some of the things that we would like to accomplish and some of the things that we have accomplished. I didn't quite finish some of the areas that we would like to cover in the future in our ministry. If I could just give a couple of points, then I will address the remarks made by the hon. second member for Vancouver South. I think his remarks were particularly urgent for people who have the problem of autism in their families. I would like to give it the time that it deserves.

I referred very quickly yesterday to the enforcement of maintenance orders. Because I covered that very specifically yesterday, I will not repeat those words. But I want this House to know that our ministry is very concerned about the problem. I want this House to understand that we as citizens of British Columbia cannot leave the enforcement of maintenance orders in the situation it is in now. It gives very difficult problems to the spouses and children who are left in very poor circumstances and with a standard of living which is less than we want for the people of our province. Suffice it to say that this ministry will aggressively pursue the changes that are needed. In cooperation and coordination with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), we will continue to do just that. I hope that in the next 12 months this House will be able to address that in a meaningful way.

Secondly, I gave a very short reference to a program which I will launch in September. I guess the success of that depends very greatly on those people in our ministry, the attitudes of the people of the province and the changes that we want. It really addresses one very specific point of view: that we live in a province which has great natural resources and great opportunities, and those opportunities must be available to all in the province of British Columbia, not to exclude anyone who wishes to have an opportunity to be independent in the province of British Columbia. It will address itself to those people who now are on income assistance in the province. I very much hope that the pilot project that we have started in the province, which has an 80 percent success rate of returning people to a productive workplace and a productive way of life, will be continued throughout the province and will be successful in the next year. You will be hearing more about that in September and I hope that all members of the Legislature — every one of our members of the Legislature — will be as enthused and excited about this new change in income assistance programs as I am. I think that it will be different than anything that has been done in Canada and I hope that you too will look forward to that happening to give an opportunity to those of our people who live in an area which.... As I have said before, our taxpayers have been generous. We have the very best program in Canada for those who live with the income assistance. We have more programs and opportunities in this province than we have anywhere in Canada, but it doesn't matter how many dollars our generous taxpayers will provide, there will never be sufficient dollars, because the answer is not contained in dollars, Mr. Chairman; the answer is contained in a different way of life for those who are, as I have said, sentenced to a life of income assistance and, very often, not of their own choosing.

I would like to just address also the plans for the ministry in terms of senior citizens, which I didn't get to touching on yesterday, because yesterday, I think, as the old saying goes, time flies so fast when you're having fun. Yesterday, when I was introducing our future programs, the time ran out, as you knew, Mr. Chairman. May I just say that our programs for senior citizens in this province are programs which our people should be very, very proud of — to be a part of a province that provides as we do provide in this province for senior citizens.

I know that I'm proud of the program that we have. I know that in every area that we have addressed.... I have received letters from senior citizens regarding our Pharmacare program, and I wish I had time to read some of them, because they are remarkable. In terms of Pharmacare, the weight of effort has been taken off senior citizens.

I referred to the SAFER program yesterday. It is one of the most exciting programs in the country. Since its inception it has been studied by practically every jurisdiction in North America; it is being copied by other jurisdictions in Canada. We are very proud of it.

Again, I think our senior citizens are the best treated in the country. I know that the members of the opposition take great delight in bringing forward examples of where this is not so. Let me say that, compared to other areas of the country, with the services we provide our senior citizens we do not have to take a back seat to anywhere else in this country. In this session you will be addressing a program for denticare, announced by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), for the first time in this province and in this country.

[ Page 3808 ]

This program will take another burden of care from the senior citizens of our province. It is banner legislation. It is a banner social program which will lead the country, and I suggest again, it will be copied by other jurisdictions. The difference between other jurisdictions and our own, Mr. Chairman, is because of the management of our economy, the exciting economic development of this province, and the leadership of our government's program.

MR. LEA: Name one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I can name more than one. I can name many economic developments which have accrued to this province and to the exciting program. Yes, let me name many. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would like me to expand on that. I have input into a portion, along with my colleagues in the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and, to some extent, the Ministry of the Attorney-General. All the social services programs and the social services ministries of this government are highly dependent upon a strong economy in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, while people in this House, while the members of the opposition, I hope, will address themselves today to those things which are the concern of the poor, the disadvantaged and the elderly in this province, I hope that we will have those people in that discussion understand that hand-in-hand with social progress has to come economic well-being and economic progress. I know that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) will soon be in her estimates and will be telling you of the economic developments that have gone on in this province because of this government.

MR. LEA: Name one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's interesting that the member for Prince Rupert should ask the question across the floor: "Name one." Why, that is the member who, when he was the Minister of Highways under the socialist government, said "Tourists go home," or words to that effect. I'm certainly paraphrasing and I'm taking a bit of liberty with that paraphrasing, Mr. Chairman. But let me just say that the member for Prince Rupert asks us to name initiatives: yes, we can name all kinds of initiatives.

MR. LEA: Name one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The great trade and convention centre that is going to provide....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, I like the way the opposition laughs at economic initiatives; it's funny how they laugh and giggle at economic initiatives that result in social process.

MR. LEA: Name one that's happened.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wonder if I could have the attention of all members and of the committee. Will all members please come to order. It is really against our standing orders to interrupt a member who is speaking.

Further to the relevancy items contained in our standing orders, I must ask the minister to remain on vote 125.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I was discussing senior citizens in that vein. As I say, the denticare program will give them yet another program which will enlighten their lives. But let me just say, on our ministry's present and future directions in terms of senior citizens, that I think the greatest aim in this direction in all the social services in the interministerial committee is somehow to attack the loneliness that some senior citizens feel in our province.

There is no question that those kinds of things cannot be legislated — we cannot put in legislation in this House — but all of us as citizens can, in some way, attack that problem of loneliness, strengthen the solutions to those problems in each community, which will give direction to the alleviation of loneliness, which has to, I guess, be the greatest scourge of the elderly in our province.

We should strengthen recreation opportunities, and our ministry is working towards that, as are our interministerial committee and my colleagues in the social services committee.

We look forward to a very good year, recognizing the Year of the Disabled in 1981. We believe that in the Year of the Disabled the recognition of those people.... The problems of the aged who are disabled by age, the problems of those who are mentally handicapped and the problems of those who are physically handicapped are a very high priority. In talking of priorities, and completing that which I believe is of importance to those of us in the ministry, I think that has been a very high priority in the past.

Let me just mention again Mr. John Noble's name — our deputy minister, whom I mentioned yesterday. High on his priority list has been the training and retraining of staff, which he continues to address himself to. We hope to have — I believe we do have now — the finest group of people who are addressing themselves to the needs of people in our province. We will continue to make sure that the staff of the Ministry of Human Resources is constantly upgraded and constantly addressing itself to the best legislation across the country and the world, and the best programs. We'll bring those to the people of British Columbia in a meaningful way.

May I now address the questions that were raised by the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). I want to tell you that I'm pleased that a member of this House has brought the problems of autistic children to the floor of the House, because, as he said yesterday, too long was it a problem that was not only not even identified by the medical profession, but was not truly recognized by the public at large. It is a horrendous problem for those who have autistic children in their families.

I don't know if the hon. second member for Vancouver South knows, but this government and the prior Social Credit government were really the first governments to ever recognize that there should be services for autism in the province of British Columbia. It was under the former Social Credit administration that the very first program was started for autistic children, and I'd like to say that it was because of a meeting that I held by gathering some parents who had written to me from all over the province — each of them with his own specific problem and concern — that the association for autistic children really began. I don't know if he knows that, and it's not important. It's important that it got started.

[ Page 3809 ]

We gathered together in the government building in Burnaby one evening. I gathered all of these people who hadn't met before and I said: "Look, we understand now the problems of those parents with autistic children. Let us all get together. It is a very sad commentary on the attitude of the socialists who followed that government that as soon as they became government, because they looked at a program that was a Social Credit government program.... It was just on the verge. The property and the house had been bought and the people were ready to move in. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman — I have to share with you — the government that came in in 1972 cancelled that program. I will never feel at all comfortable knowing that there were several children who at that age were really lost in the system. It doesn't matter how much effort has been made since we became government: those children were another four years older by the time we reached them again. It's too bad that some of those children have been lost in the system, and they are today. That socialist side of the House must take full responsibility for that. It was a very sad thing.

The Tsawwassen house that is now established is a residential house for children and they are doing a good job. I have visited it. The staff there have a very great challenge to undertake.

The Laurel House Society that the member spoke of is an excellent service. It was born, as I said — or maybe as the member said — through the previous Social Credit administration, when at last people began to identify autism and autistic children in the province of British Columbia. Special services for children, under our ministry, now try to take, do take and have been successful in taking the Laurel House example and all of the experimental programs for children that they have refined over the years in a meaningful way. They have taken them and tried to duplicate them throughout in the province, not in residences but in bringing the families to Laurel House, training them and then having them return home. So a person who lives in Penticton or Atlin and has an autistic child does not have to leave their home or residence in that particular area in order to come to the city of Vancouver for services. That has been done in a meaningful way. I am glad to share that with the House because I don't think it is particularly well known.

In terms of autistic children, I would also like to refer all of us to the Infant Development Program, where the identification of any particular handicap, including autism, is very real and is very successfully done. The Infant Development Program, as you know, has only been in the province for the last couple of years. Early diagnosis is very important and is happening today in the province.

Laurel House desires to upgrade its facilities to give a better service. As the member explained, it is a very old house. I recall being in the house when it was first opened, and in subsequent years, they have added on and tried to refine a very old home. I would say it is probably at least 40 years old, if not older. As the member said yesterday, it is bursting at the seams. There is no question that a replacement for that home should be found. I see it as an interministerial committee problem; I think the member recognized that too.

I'd like to inform the House that very real progress is being made in interministerial cooperation. I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of our province that the social services programs have been better administered in an interministerial way and in a realistic way in each and every community, not just in the city of Victoria and the parliament buildings where the ministers and deputy ministers meet, but also in an outreach way in the community, through the interministerial committees. That is happening at the local level and it is happening successfully. I really see incredible progress in that regard. If a child is autistic and is identified by the interministerial committee in Atlin or Penticton, the service is immediately brought to the family's attention and they have that service.

I'd like to pay tribute to my committee members on the social services committee, because it is working, and to the deputy ministers' committee, the interministerial child committee and the interministerial committee for children in crisis. It's all working. I think it is working because of the kinds of people who are involved in social services in this province. There is no question that they are extremely dedicated. caring people.

Laurel House has an Education component; it unquestionably has a Human Resources component and a Health component. I would like to give the commitment today to the hon. second member for Vancouver South that we will address it in a meaningful, interministerial way. The service deserves to have financial backing and presence in the community. It requires a very good and proper place in which those dedicated staff members may work. I am very supportive of it. I would like to thank the member for bringing their concerns to the House. I know he has brought them to me personally and I have been very cognizant of the problem. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to suggest to the member that the interministerial committee of social services will address it in a meaningful way. I hope that we can find solutions for Laurel House very shortly.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to get to some of the minister's duties as Deputy Premier of the province, prior to dealing with the Human Resources areas that the opposition will be addressing itself to. The opposition feels it's rather important to have proper accountability in the Legislature of all ministers of the Crown to the public. There are a number of unanswered questions surrounding the Deputy Premier's responsibility that go back for some considerable time. I would like to ask some very specific questions of the minister in her role as Deputy Premier.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I tried to be quite amiable with members of the opposition when they took this tack, but I'm going to ask a ruling of the Chair.

My duties as Deputy Premier are not covered in the estimates book — do not in any way relate to anything other than the office of the Minister of Human Resources. I am always, and always have been, very pleased and honoured and feel highly responsible for taking on any duties regarding my other title as Deputy Premier, and I will continue to do so. I've never shunned that and won't today.

Mr. Chairman, I make this point, and I would like to ask a ruling from you. In the executive council I not only have responsibility as Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources; I am also, when the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is out of the province, responsible for duties as the alternate minister there. When the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is out of the province I am responsible as Minister of Transportation and Highways as well. I am pleased to take these responsibilities, although I have to say that in both cases, as it is with our

[ Page 3810 ]

Premier, they address the problems in their responsibilities so well that I haven't had a great deal to do in that regard in any of those cases. But I have been pleased to do so when needed.

In all of the executive council the same prevails. I could go through the list, but I don't think it's important to do so. When the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is not here, the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) takes his place. Failing either of them being in the province, then the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) takes the place.

I make the point, Mr. Chairman, and I have no concern about answering any questions within my responsibility, but quite frankly I suggest to you that we are not getting very far with the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources when the members of the opposition are trying to play politics in terms of the titles of the alternate ministers.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. minister, courtesy in reply is always a feature of the House, and allusions like that should not be accepted.

Hon. members, we have before us vote 125, the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources, who also has....

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just responding to the hon. member's point of order, and then I'll recognize the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke.

The hon. Minister of Human Resources from time to time will act in her position as Deputy Premier when asked to do so by the Premier. If the Chair allowed debate to continue on all aspects or, in fact, replacing the Premier by the Deputy Premier, then we would be repeating the estimates of the Premier. I would ask that all members contain debate to the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources. The administrative actions of the Deputy Premier can be debated if, in fact, we can establish any specific time or date or function, where the hon. minister whose estimates are before us was acting in place of the Premier. That is my finding. With that I once again recognize the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke on vote 125.

MR. KING: I had risen on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wished to speak to the point of order raised by the Minister of Human Resources, and Mr. Chairman shut me out of making a point of order in response prior to making his decision. I have difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in appreciating how the Chairman can arrive at a decision on a point of order which is raised when the tradition, the practice and the custom in this House is to listen to the various points of view on a point of order. I was prevented from responding, and I would have appreciated that courtesy prior to a decision being made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor now, hon. member.

MR. KING: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that a minister acting is not at issue here. All members of the executive council from time to time act in other cabinet positions in the absence of a colleague. But the fact remains that each estimate represented by a minister is available for debate in this Legislature, and there is accountability.

The Deputy Premier is a different issue altogether. It is not an acting position, Mr. Chairman; it is one designated by the executive council as their choice. It is a permanent position. We have the estimates of that individual now before the House, and for one to accept the glory of that position without at the same time accepting the obligation to be accountable to the public is something foreign to parliamentary democracy.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, under what vote, under what circumstance, the opposition would have an opportunity to question the individual action of the individual acting as Deputy Premier if it is foreclosed to us on this occasion. That would mean that we have a designated member of the executive council of the province of British Columbia who is totally immune from examination of her conduct and her responsibilities in that narrow role under any circumstance in the Legislature. As far as I am concerned, I intend to hold her accountable, not for the Premier's responsibilities but for her own conduct and for that which she has, by public record, undertaken on behalf of the government in the province.

So I want to move back, Mr. Chairman, to a meeting that was held in the Bayshore Inn....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you did rise on a point of order. I wonder if I could respond to it.

I did not, in my previous statement, indicate in any way that you could not debate the office of the Deputy Premier. But I did remind you that this is an office and these are administrative actions that are designated from time to time by the Premier to the hon. member whose estimates are before us. In order to debate the administrative actions of the minister when the minister is acting as Deputy Premier, we would have to establish the dates and the assignments given to the minister by the Premier. Having established those terms and times, one can debate the administrative actions of the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I'd like to thank the Chairman for maintaining what the minister has tried to deny — that she is the Deputy Premier. This goes along with the point of order, I think, to give you some help in your decision. As the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has pointed out, from time to time one cabinet minister is made the acting minister of another portfolio while someone is out of town or unavailable. But during that time you don't have your name put on the door. At one time you could be the acting minister of five or six departments; you don't have all the names on your door all year. This minister has her name on the door designating her as Deputy Premier all year long; she has duties all year long, as far as we can ascertain. I said yesterday that surely it wasn't a political sop for good political organization that she was labelled Deputy Premier — just for political purposes. I didn't believe that until the minister tried to sniggle out of it today and say: "I'm not really the Deputy Premier. I'm just like the other ministers when they act as acting ministers for other portfolios."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: I'm on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 3811 ]

I'm pleased that the Chair has maintained that she is the Deputy Premier, even though at this late date she tried to deny it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister did not deny it, hon. member.

The hon. minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The comments that have just been made by the hon. member for Prince Rupert are a complete reversal of the things that I have said. There is no way that I said that I would deny that I was the Deputy Premier. There is no way that I have said that I would deny any of the responsibilities. The member is trying to put a different connotation altogether onto the statement that I made; it's a completely different statement. I won't accept that statement from that....

MR. LEA: So you are the Deputy Premier, are you?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have never denied that, nor will I....

MR. LEA: Oh, yes, you did, Grace!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, this is an absolutely ridiculous argument. The member for Prince Rupert, in his incredible statements, is just....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are turning points of order into a debate. The Chair has indicated that, in fact, of course the Deputy Premier is the Deputy Premier. However, those are from time to time designated responsibilities, and in order to question and debate the administrative actions of the Deputy Premier, one would have to ascertain when that designation was made.

I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: On a further point of order that I thought might perhaps be taken into consideration in this deliberation we're now having, for your information, Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Premier brought into this House a bill on the trade and convention centre under the name of "Deputy Premier." So I would presume that this gives the position of Deputy Premier more than just an ad hoc nature. I would like that to be taken into your deliberation before you curtail debate on her duties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not trying to limit debate in any way, shape or form. What the Chair is attempting to do is eliminate any re-canvassing of the Premier's estimates, except where the minister may be involved. The member for Burnaby North pointed out a case where the minister was involved, and is responsible as Deputy Premier for another matter that was before the House. Once again, I find that the Deputy Premier can be questioned, but only when we can endorse the fact that the administrative actions were carried out by the minister as designated by the Premier, and given her role as Deputy Premier in that instance.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, when I gained the floor on the first occasion, before I had an opportunity to even ask a question, a point of order was raised, apparently assuming the content of what I intended to say. I find that a bit curious.

We've gone through an empty exercise, because the minister was not prepared to listen to the questions that I intended to ask. Had she done so, I suggest that she would have found that they were totally relevant to her responsibilities as Deputy Premier.

The other point I would like to make — and it's a delicate one, Mr. Chairman, and I intend it with nothing but kindness and generosity — is that when my colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was making a point of order and attributed a statement to the minister, the Chair intervened and said: "No, she didn't say that."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point is well taken, hon. member.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I know that the Chair does not intend to enter into debate, but it is very important that the Chair be neutral at all times, and I just raise that as a reminder that it's very important to demonstrate that continuing impartiality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. That point is well taken by the Chair.

MR. KING: Now, Mr. Chairman, the Premier referred in a press report dated November 22, 1979, to his disappointment regarding the handling of the dirty tricks affair — that was the advice by two Social Credit caucus staff people that dirty tricks be used in campaigning in the province of British Columbia. The Premier made this statement, and I think it's directly relevant to the minister's responsibility.

"Premier Bennett said Wednesday that if he had been in Victoria when the dirty tricks scandal surfaced, it would have been cleaned up by now. Bennett was on a trade mission to Japan and Korea when reporters first learned Social Credit Party members were sending phony letters to newspaper editors. The Premier admitted he knew about a mysterious bank account used to finance the Vancouver seminar where the dirty tricks tape was recorded. The expenses of researchers Ellen McKay and Jack Kelly, who had advocated playing dirty in the last provincial election campaign, were also paid from this account.

"Bennett said the account was opened to ensure government funds were not used for party functions, but he would not say whether the account had been closed, why party officials were not aware of it, or who had signing authority for the account."

Two other members of the executive council also criticized the handling of the dirty tricks affair, the hon. Minister of Environment at that time, Rafe Mair, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Hon. William Vander Zalm, said: "The government would not find itself in the position it is now — dogged by the press and careening from one revelation to another — if it had tackled the scandal squarely from the outset."

All of this implies that it was the duty and responsibility of the senior member of the executive council at that time to handle that whole issue differently and more squarely. Indeed, the Deputy Premier was present, I understand, at the seminar where the two staff members advocated the "play dirty" campaign.

I want to know two things from the minister. I want to know if she's asking the Legislature to believe she attended

[ Page 3812 ]

that seminar as the senior political officer there, and was blissfully unaware of what was being advocated at that seminar. The second question I have for her, Mr. Chairman, is whether the Premier ever explained to her where she had gone wrong in her handling of the dirty tricks affair, and how he would have handled it more squarely, to provide to the public some assurance that this kind of political action was not going to be reverted to in the province of British Columbia. Did the Premier explain where she went wrong? Did he give any direction regarding the handling of this kind of scurrilous activity in the future?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in an effort to try to assist the House, let me say this: on the answer to the second question.... The member is giving me really two or three questions, but I'll narrow in on the one, and if he wants any further explanation.... As I understand it, he said, "Did the Premier suggest where I had gone wrong?" as being Deputy Premier at the time that he was away in Japan. The answer to that question is no.

On the first question where he refers to a seminar, he is asking the question: am I asking the Legislature to believe that I did not have anything to do with the remarks or hear the remarks? The answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is yes. I'm asking the Legislature to believe that and as hon. members I assume that you will believe that. I also assume and appreciate that you've heard my public statements in that regard, that that seminar was one that was organized by the party. I was invited to make an address; I arrived at the Bayshore Inn, made the address and left. Both prior to and after the address, I had other commitments to which I addressed myself, and they were not at the Bayshore Inn but otherwise on business of the province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister suggests to us then, and indeed she has advised the Legislature, that the Deputy Premier — senior political officer for her party — attended an election seminar where addresses were given by two researchers of the caucus advocating phony letters and play-dirty politics, and she remained blissfully unaware of that fact. No one there advised her that this kind of advocacy had taken place, and I believe that shortly thereafter her own personal executive assistant, who worked in her ministerial office by political appointment — not through the public service, but appointed by order-in-council — her personal representative, acted as the distributor of the tapes which were made of the dirty-trick advocacy.

Is the minister advising the House that she was blissfully unaware of the advice and the approach that was being taken at the Bayshore Inn at the seminar? Is she advising the House that she was also blissfully unaware of the fact that her own personal executive assistant, acting solely under her direction as a political representative, distributed those tapes throughout the province to Social Credit local constituency associations? Is the minister asking us to believe that too?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I want to share with you and the House that everything being asked by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has already been asked and is a matter of public record and has been a matter of public record for some time: The questions that have been asked by him have been asked many times over by members of the media, and this member of the opposition is recycling all of that which has been going on for some time, and which has been answered for some time. It's a matter of public record.

If I am to answer every question of the opposition today, then if we will confine it to the time that the Premier is out of the province and I'm acting as Deputy Premier — if that is your ruling, I don't know what it is.... But could I just say that during the time the Bayshore seminar was on, according to my memory, the Premier was not out of the province. Mr. Chairman, if you're going to ask me to try to recall when the Premier was or was not out of the province, then.... He is very seldom out of the province, as you know, unless it is on the business of the public and in intergovernmental federal-provincial conferences and provincial conferences. Unless we're going to establish that, I will have to be selective about the answering of the questions, because there is just no other way that I can handle it. The opposition obviously wishes to handle it in a far different way. The opposition also knows full well that all of the questions that have been asked in these last two or three minutes by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke have been answered. It is not a point of order that I stand on, Mr. Chairman; I'm responding to the questions. They have been answered very fully without any reservation and with complete candour by this member of the Legislature. You are simply recycling old news and bringing it up front to make a political point. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I can't accept that line of questioning.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the Deputy Premier has now said on two or three occasions.... A while ago I wrote down one note in which she said she was Deputy Premier at the time he, the Premier, was away in Japan. Now she just said the same sort of thing here.

I have here the official seating plan of the Legislature, issued under Speaker Schroeder's authority. In the seating plan it shows the seat held by the "Hon. G.M. McCarthy (1st Van.-Little Mountain)" identified as being Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources. Hansard, which lists the names of cabinet ministers, also has, as an identification of the member, "Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources." All the records of the House that are used identify that member as being Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources. I maintain that she is Deputy Premier forever, not just when the Premier happens to be away; she is Deputy Premier at all times. She receives that office not by designation or delegation from the Premier, but she received that office and was appointed to that office by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. It's a permanent function.

I submit that she cannot weave her way around this simple question by identifying it to dates and being prepared to answer only on certain dates when the Premier happens to be away or incapacitated or whatever. She is Deputy Premier forever and has that full responsibility and has the full obligation to report thereon to this House for all time. I think the Chair should so rule: that the minister should respond to the questions directed to her with respect to her activity as Deputy Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair obviously has some trouble in determining what actually would fall within the scope of the Deputy Premier's estimates per se. To possibly resolve the matter successfully and in a more

[ Page 3813 ]

learned way, I would suggest hon. members allow the Chair time to more thoroughly review the matter and, in the meantime, if it is agreeable to members, continue with the estimates for a while on the specifics of the Human Resources issues. The Chair must not in any way either be seen to, or be seen as attempting to limit debate; that is not the function of the Chair. The function of the Chair is to enforce the rules of debate that guide this House. If that is to be done effectively, then I would ask members to allow the Chair a short time to consult and review the authorities — a decision will be brought down — and, in the meantime, to continue on the debates of the Minister of Human Resources' aspect of the portfolio. This will allow the Chair an opportunity to bring in a decision that will help to guide all members and effectively resolve what has become a bit of an impasse in debate in the House.

On a point of order, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, there are two things: the minister indicated that she would be prepared to selectively account for her conduct as Deputy Premier, and she indicated that certain information has been made public and, therefore, should not be canvassed in the Legislature.

First, I want to say to the Chair that information that may have been printed in the newspapers is no substitute for accountability to the parliament of this province. While I attribute no improper motive to the minister, I think the Chair and the House will recognize that from time to time politicians do claim to have been misquoted or misrepresented or to have had their remarks taken out of context. So to suggest that their responsibility to the Legislature has been fully satisfied simply by a statement that is attributed to them in the media is, in my view, totally misunderstanding one's responsibilities to parliament.

In the second case, I appreciate the Chair's request for a recess, but I would hope that the Chair would not contemplate interfering with the flow of debate. I certainly am, and I would expect my colleagues are, quite in favour of allowing a recess if the committee wishes to rise and recess for ten minutes while the Chairman consults his legal advisers. We'd be most happy to do so. To do otherwise would be to direct the opposition in terms of their priorities on how they conduct debate. I would suggest, with all due respect, that that would not be the intention of the Chair.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, basically your task will be a difficult one, because the end result will be on your decision of whether or not this province has a Deputy Premier. I'd like to give you some more information that would lead the opposition to believe that the minister is the Deputy Premier all the time, as the minister has claimed up until today. Why is it — and I would like the Speaker to check this — that this minister has a higher office staff than any other minister? The only other portfolio that has the same number of staff as the minister is the one that she used to occupy as Provincial Secretary. She has, on her personal staff, nine employees. The closest to that in any other ministry is seven, and a lot of them are six and five. The only other office that has nine personal staff is the Provincial Secretary, which that minister occupied previously. I imagine there hasn't been time to take out those two staff to this point.

I'd like you to consider, when making your decision, Mr. Speaker, that if you decide that this minister is not the Deputy Premier all of the time, then her name will have to come off all the stationery and the House list and she may not be referred to by you when she takes her place in this House as Deputy Premier. The question before you is: is this minister Deputy Premier or is she not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, again I must confess that in this particular instance the Chair has been placed in a very difficult position. The Chair feels it would not be totally appropriate for the Chair to rule specifically at this time. At the same time, a recess is hardly called for with other scope of debate available. However, the point raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke on the matter of continuity of debate is a valid one. Would the House allow the Chair just a moment or two, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and I'd like the members of government and opposition to know why. We have a number of message bills, which unfortunately were delayed in transit for 10 o'clock, and we would like to get these introduced in the interests of both the government and the opposition. I would like to do that at this point in time. I therefore move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Once the bills have been introduced we will be returning to Committee of Supply on the same vote.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT 1980

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1980.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. minister, I move that said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 54; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the hon. minister, I move the committee rise and recommend the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3814 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1980.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and recommend the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Ministry of intergovernmental Relations Act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and recommend the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 63, Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Amendment Act, 1980.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I ask leave to move first reading of the bill.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and recommend the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 62, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Utilities Commission Act.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I ask leave to move first reading.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 52; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and recommend the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

[ Page 3815 ]

Bill 52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1980.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 55; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and recommend introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 55 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HOLIDAY SHOPPING REGULATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Holiday Shopping Regulation Act.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee on Bill 56; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and recommend introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 125: minister's office, $212,051.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to devote my remarks specifically to the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources. I'd like to begin by congratulating her on the great job she's doing. I'd like to congratulate the hon. minister, first, on the great job she's doing administering that ministry, but more particularly I'd like to thank her very much for the warmth and people ability she has to deal with this very important ministry.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will remind hon. members that it is quite unparliamentary to interrupt another member who is speaking. With that said, I will ask the House to please come to order.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I had the floor. A dispute arose as to whether or not the line of debate and questioning was totally in order. The Chairman promised to return with a ruling, which he has not yet done. To now recognize another member when a flow of debate was going once again violates custom, tradition and practice in this House and smacks of a coverup, an attempt to interfere with debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will have to ask the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to withdraw the word I "coverup." My understanding is that that word has been found to be unparliamentary. In any event, the Chair finds the word unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Chair found it quite parliamentary and accepted it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I believe the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke made an accusation that there was a coverup. I believe he was referring to the Chair being responsible for that, in that the Chairman recognized the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. I believe it was that recognition to which the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke referred. Therefore I think that member has accused the Chair of a coverup, and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has been asked for a withdrawal by the Chair and by another hon. member, and I ask that member to withdraw the word "coverup."

MR. KING: Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I resent ministers or anyone else attributing motives to me or inter-

[ Page 3816 ]

preting my remarks. I in no way accused the Chair of coverup; I accused the government of covering up and attempting to evade the accountability of a minister. That's whom I accused, and you, Mr. Minister, are among them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING: In terms of the Chair, if the Chair finds the term "coverup" offensive, I withdraw, Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the position in this Legislature of the Chair. I do categorize the government's action as highly evasive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was in the House during the last part of this debate, and the hon. members across the way were rising on a point of order and the Chairman indicated clearly to the whole of the House — it was not yourself, sir, at that point in time — that it was a matter that he had to spend some time on and consider. He stated that very, very clearly. Then the Chairman had to take the chair as Speaker to process the message bills, and he is now in the process of considering. We all understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further, the Chair will recognize the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), pointing out to all hon. members that there is a procedure in our standing orders, standing order 37, that indicates what actions members can take upon a ruling of the Chair when recognizing a speaker. The Chair has recognized a speaker.

MR. HOWARD: On a point or order, Mr. Chairman, you have not dealt with the point of order raised by the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke (Mr. King), which was this: that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke earlier had the floor. He was interrupted by a point of order and took his seat to allow the point of order to proceed. There were other points of order that were raised. Then the committee rose in order to deal with the introduction of message bills. We're back into committee now. The points of order had been put to one side. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is the only person who had the floor at the interruption of points of order and should be recognized now, not somebody else, and that's what I think is an interruption.

Your Honour, Mr. Chairman, you were not here at the time that was taking place, but that is what in fact took place, and I think you have to deal with the point of order raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke that legitimately and properly he had the floor and should be recognized now, with the necessity of resorting to moving under standing order 37.

MS. BROWN: Further to that point of order, Mr. Chairman, maybe I can also remind you that the Chairman who was in the chair at the time requested that the House allow him some time to contemplate the point and proceed to debate something else. That permission was not granted. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, speaking on behalf of the opposition, suggested that, if the Chairman needed a recess, the House could recess while he had his deliberations, but no permission was given by the Chair to permit the debate to cease, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to lose his place in the debate, while this decision was being made. And, Mr. Chairman, may I remind you the Chairman told us that any attempt to disrupt the smooth flow of debate was certainly not part of the role of the Chairman and certainly was not one that should be tolerated by this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the committee did rise on agreement of the House on a motion being put to the committee and on the committee voting on it. The committee then was called back on vote 125 and I recognized the first member standing, who was the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. There is provision in our standing orders, and the Chair has no alternative but to allow the member for North Vancouver–Seymour to speak.

MR. HOWARD: He was not the first member standing; there were three members who rose; the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, all rose at the same time. But the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke was the person who had the floor earlier and had relinquished it because of an interruption by a point of order. You have no choice, in my opinion, because no other information has been given to you to the contrary, but to recognize the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke whose place in the debate was interrupted by points of order. If you do other than that, Mr. Chairman, then the Chair leaves itself open to being looked upon as picking and choosing in an unfair way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I will cite to you from chapter 19, page 406 of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, where it states: "when two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker calls on the member who, on rising in his place, is first observed by him." There were four members who rose when the committee was called to order and vote 125 was called. The first one I observed was the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, and that member continues on vote 125.

MR. HOWARD: I must challenge what is obviously a preposterous ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you can challenge the ruling, but I must find that word "preposterous" an unparliamentary insult upon the Chair. I would ask you to withdraw that.

MR. HOWARD: Then we'll delete it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The word is deleted or withdrawn and the Chair has been challenged.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman in committee on vote 125 recognized the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and that recognition and ruling has been challenged.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

[ Page 3817 ]

NAYS 17

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 125: minister's office, $212,051.

MR. DAVIS: I want to specifically address the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources and, more particularly, I want to spend a few minutes in the Legislature this morning discussing a problem that I have encountered in my own riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, which I know also has been causing difficulties in other parts of the province. It relates to group homes. It's a question of locating group homes in residential areas. Often there's a resistance locally to the idea of a group home for children, with various difficulties they have being established in the midst of a single family dwelling area. I've run into it recently in the case of a single-family residence being purchased for the Ministry of Human Resources by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. It was bought last fall and the purpose of this purchase became apparent to residents in the area this spring. They resented the intrusion of an institution of the group home type in their local community without any advance notice. In any case, they appealed to the local municipal council.

The council made inquiries, and only recently have they been informed that municipal councils in this province are powerless insofar as the location or zoning of group homes are concerned. Mr. Chairman, there's a certain amount of confusion not only in British Columbia but also in other provinces across Canada. Municipal zoning is municipal and comes under the Municipal Act. The location of group homes, it now turns out, is provincial in British Columbia and comes under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act. Provided the home is licensed by the proper provincial authorities, it escapes the zoning provisions of local government. These homes can be put anywhere: they can be located in single-family dwelling areas, commercial areas, industrial areas or even in municipal parks — if I can stretch a point. In other words, local government has no say in this particular matter. The people living in a single-family dwelling area have no say whatsoever in this decision-making process.

I suppose I can largely blame the NDP for that. The relevant clauses in the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act — the high-handed clauses which give the back of the hand to municipal zoning — were introduced by the previous NDP government in 1974 and 1975. But the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act, with these added provisions, is now the law of the land: it takes precedence over the Municipal Act; it places the onus for the location of group homes squarely on the shoulders of the provincial government. It says, in effect, that if there is to be any prior consultation with the local citizenry, it must be undertaken by the officials of the Ministry of Human Resources, under instruction from the minister herself.

Ontario has struggled with this problem. Like British Columbia, Ontario has decided to break up the big institutions for children. It's preference instead is for group homes, scattered as much as possible throughout the community. Groups homes and foster homes are the ideal. This is a policy of de-institutionalization, which is promoted in the context of community life, community service and normalization.

Rehabilitation is obviously the objective. This can best be accomplished by giving these young people an opportunity to mix with other children of their own age in circumstances which are as close to our society's norm as possible. A group home, as I understand it, is a sort of halfway house. It's a home for children between the ages of 6 and 16. Typically, these homes may have six, eight or ten children in them; they may be of both sexes. There will be several staff living in full time, including a cook, a housekeeper and a social worker or two.

The idea I got from my North Vancouver–Seymour experience was that it was a one-on-one kind of thing. In total, there could be as many adults involved as there were children in a home. However, only two or three adults live in the home full-time, whereas the children are there for periods ranging from three months to several years. It's a managed situation, Mr. Chairman. However, the children are to be given as much freedom as possible. Depending on their background and their behaviour, they would be monitored closely through the day or allowed to go to school and play with other children, on their own recognizance. Their history, if I can call it that, would vary considerably. They may have been put upon badly in their own original homes, or they may have been in trouble of their own making; either way, they need a change, and this is what they will be getting in a well-run group home. These children, I am assured, are not criminals; they've not been sentenced in a court of law. They are problem children; they may be victims of others' misdeeds or they may have to change their own way, but there is hope for them. Given the right kind of supervision and the right kind of environment, there's an excellent chance that as they grow older they will become useful members of our society.

Toronto has had a problem with group homes. There were clusters of them in certain areas. At the same time, municipalities in other parts of the province and indeed elsewhere in metropolitan Toronto were refusing to allow group homes anywhere in their territory — certainly not in areas zoned as single-family residences. The result in 1978, after the publication of a White Paper, was a model bylaw. It was developed in close cooperation between the Ontario equivalent of our Ministry of Human Resources — the office is the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development — and

[ Page 3818 ]

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in Ontario. Basically the suggested urban bylaw says: "A group home is a single housekeeping unit in a residential dwelling in which three to ten unrelated residents live as family, under responsible supervision consistent with the requirements of its residents. The home is licensed as approved under provincial statute in compliance with municipal bylaws." So much for the numbers. The model bylaw goes on to say that any residential dwelling may be used for a group home, provided that there is no other group home or similar facility within a distance from the building computed.... And it goes on to describe a rather complicated formula of distance, which can vary between municipalities. It goes into some detail, but essentially it says that group homes must be at least 1,000 feet apart — in Toronto that's the figure they arrived at — or some other distance, such as 1,600 feet in the district of Scarborough.

The problem now in Ontario is that many municipalities are either not passing a bylaw along these lines — along the lines, in other words, proposed by the provincial government — or are varying its parameters. Some, like the city of Toronto, have adopted the bylaw. But they are few and far between; most others are dragging their feet. Either that or they have reduced the number of children permitted in the group home to such a low number — two or four, for example — that the entire operation becomes inordinately expensive.

So we have a mixed situation in Ontario. It may not be as awkward administratively as it has been here, so far, but it still badly needs refinement and a much closer liaison between their ministry people — the ministry responsible for human resources — on the one side, and their municipal affairs ministry and the various individual municipalities on the other.

Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to make a hard-and-fast recommendation, because I don't know as much as I would like to know about this subject. But I can say this. Our B.C. Ministries of Human Resources, Municipal Affairs, Health, Education and the Attorney-General should get together on the question of group homes, their definition, spacing, and so on. They should decide, first and foremost, whether the final act of zoning should be provincial or municipal. I think it should be local — in other words, municipal. If this is their conclusion, then they should at the very least draft a model bylaw which our municipalities can use when they are locating group homes in their own particular territories.

As far as I am concerned, these group homes should be small. They should be of the same in numbers as a medium-sized to large family in our typical single-family residential areas. That means less than ten children; it may mean less than eight; it could mean six, for example.

The spacing of these homes, one from another, should also be considered. Half a mile might be the right order of magnitude, at least for a beginning. The size of lot should also be considered. It should not be 30 feet, 50 feet or even 60 feet. The proximity of recreational, school and other resources should be considered. This latter consideration was totally absent in my latest case in North Vancouver–Seymour. I think it's important that children in a group home have recreation facilities available to them close by — outlets which can absorb their energies in the late afternoons, evenings, and on weekends and holidays.

There should be provision for local area input. The neighbours, in other words, should have a say in the operation of these homes. They should at the very least play a monitoring role. If things don't go well, they should have some way in which they can appeal to the Ministry of Human Resources, either for a change in management or for the home to be closed altogether.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should say a word about a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the question of group homes, referred to as the Regina v. Bell case. The court ruled, in effect, that group homes are permitted in all areas designated as residential by our municipal authorities. The municipality of North York — that's in the Toronto area — had taken this matter of definition of a single-family home all the way up through our court system. Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the municipality of North York did not have the power to enact a bylaw which defined families as persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, and also who could have house guests and servants but not roomers. The court, in fact, threw out the provision that unrelated people could not share a rented house or apartment. To put it another way, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that a municipality can zone land for residential, commercial, industrial or mixed usage, but it cannot dictate who should live in a residential property.

This is good news, of course, for elderly pensioners who want to rent a room so they can keep their houses. It is good news to students and young workers who want to share the cost of a rented house or apartment. It's good news, too, for mentally or physically handicapped adults and children, persons recovering from illness or addiction and even former prisoners who need some help and supervision but who want and are able to live together in a family-type atmosphere.

Ontario's municipalities that have been resisting the establishment of group homes in residential neighbourhoods cannot, in terms of the law, do so any longer. The fight to get all of metro Toronto to adopt a group-home bylaw like that of Toronto, which allows group homes in every neighbourhood, seems to have been rendered obsolete by the supreme court's recent ruling.

British Columbia will have to take this interpretation of Canadian law into account. Our government will also have to face the problems of zoning as they relate to group homes in our municipalities in B.C. I hope our various ministries can get together on this subject. I also hope that they will be able to draft a bylaw which they can recommend to our municipalities, so that there is as much local input in the location of these homes as possible.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I want to thank the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour for his attention today to the question of group homes. It is one that has always been a contentious one throughout almost every community where they have been tried to be placed, because, really, in almost every community the misunderstanding is usually there at the beginning. Balancing that, however, on the other side of the coin is the fact that once we have established a group home or group homes in a community, it is remarkable how few complaints we get.

I'd like to give you the experience that we have had in that regard and share that with you, because it's very important to understand, as the member pointed out, that the deinstitutionalizing of the treatment for youngsters is so important. Years ago we would build huge edifices — in many cases youngsters were placed behind bars, many places confined — and treatment was not actually implemented so

[ Page 3819 ]

much as incarceration. We've come many, many miles from that point to a point where we now treat children with emotional problems — or problems, as the member has so well defined, where they come from very difficult home situations and they require the kind of love, care and attention that have to be given by others than their own families.

So I'm pleased that you raised the point. It should be very much clarified in the province, and I would just like to say that our ministry's objectives have also come a long way since group homes were the answer to institutionalizing: we've come a long way in refining group homes per se. We've come a long way in that we agree that they should not be concentrated in one area. We no longer do that. We really work towards not making a concentration, because that would not be a model community. What we really want most for the children is a model community — one where they can get the support from the community at large, i.e. the school, the church, the recreational facilities — yet one with an ordinary neighbourhood community atmosphere and one where they would get the one-to-one attention that was drawn to our attention here today by the member.

We have made a rule that we will keep the group homes small. Although they may be licensed for eight children, experience has shown that only five or six full-time residents are in residence at any given time, except for very unusual peak periods; for a home licence for eight children, the average residency is usually approximately six.

I also want to agree with the member that neighbours should at all times be taken into confidence from the very beginning on where a group home is to be placed.

One of the criteria that we've always had in these past few years in this province in establishing group homes is that we don't remove a child from his neighbourhood, unless that is part of the treatment itself. If part of the treatment is to remove the child from the place where he may have got into trouble, then there is a therapeutic reason for removing the child to another community. However, if the child has some grandparents and uncles and aunts and real ties and commitment in the area and if that child has a very good possibility.... I may suggest to you that we have proven that that child can be returned to his natural parents in that community in most cases, and in the tragic cases where that doesn't happen, we make other arrangements, but in most cases we'd like them to remain in the community.

For those who say that we're, in their words, "imposing" a group home on a community.... I've heard all the reasons: lowering the property values, imposing "a concentrated, large family," if you like, in an area where there may be residences of smaller numbers, and so on. I appreciate that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is not making those points, but if they are valid in the minds of those who make them, we must also balance that and ensure that neighbourhood that they too have a responsibility — we all have, as citizens of British Columbia — to encompass that child in the community. The community itself must enshrine that child with the kind of attention and love in his or her own community.... It's not good enough that we should shunt them off, saying: "Oh, there is some other community; it's not our problem." Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it is their problem; it's the problem of all of us and the problem is right at the local community. Whether it be right in the actual home, or influences on that home or influences in the community, it is right there on their doorstep and that is where it must remain to be solved.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

But I think there is a positive answer in our experience. I'd like to say that we have come a long way. It has been a constructive evolution — and remember, that's really what it is. We're trying different things and different ways to meet the problems of raising children and the problems of children who have been abused or neglected in modern-day society. It is not an easy question. Each and every individual child is. another individual and a special case and cannot be treated with a blanket statement. That's why different kinds of group homes are in our province and why we try to find different kinds of special people to attempt to answer some of the problems which face these youngsters.

I like your idea of better communications with the neighbours. The case that you present to us from North Vancouver–Seymour arose, I think, because of the aggressiveness of the people who recognized the need for a group home in tying down and acquiring a piece of property and then proceeding to tell the neighbourhood. I think that's a little bit of the cart-before-the-horse approach. Without sacrificing the need for the ministry to get the best deal in terms of acquisition of property, I think there should be a lot more kinds of communication, and I would certainly take that as a very constructive criticism of how things have been handled — in some cases very well and in other cases a little limited in communication. It inflames tempers and the judgment of people when, all of a sudden, thrust within their midst is a complete change in what their community has been. I really take that as very constructive criticism, and I'd certainly like to address that.

Again may I emphasize that our general experience has been that after they've been established, there are very, very few complaints. It's amazing. We must give credit to the people of British Columbia. They do embrace the youngsters in the group homes. They do sort of start to even help. Just last weekend I visited a group home for handicapped teenagers. It was interesting that at first the community was just a little reluctant. They didn't know if they wanted to have this very different home — not just your average family home — move in. It's a teenage handicapped home. The teenagers living there happily ensconced are teenagers in wheelchairs. They have full-time care in the house. It's an incredible facility and an exciting concept. It gets those young teenagers out of an institution and provides just exactly what we would want for them. We should be proud of that kind of facility.

The experience was interesting, because the neighbourhood, at first, was just a little reluctant — not in a very public way, but there was the odd thing said and there were little indications. It's strange they had a meeting and had the communications that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is suggesting and all of a sudden that neighbourhood is rising to the challenges. They helped when the building was going on and those special ramps and special accesses for wheelchairs were being built. They were pitching in and lending their assistance and expertise, and now that they have become a home, those little exchanges that we all do in terms of moving into a new neighbourhood have taken place and that nice kind of communication with the neighbourhood has taken place.

So it happens, and it's interesting to know. May I just say that on every occasion after the group home is established our people of British Columbia respond and really act very well,

[ Page 3820 ]

and in response volunteer their time and become very good neighbours. The general experience is that no problems come to our attention once the home is established. The appeal, if there is to be an appeal situation, would come, I think, directly to me or to our ministry. I would think that such a complaint.... I would just give you an example of one.

We have had an empty group home of recent months, because the need has not been established in the recent months. Unfortunately, just the physical appearance of the house has been less than satisfactory, but for a very good reason. The neighbours, knowing that it's a government-purchased home, have been concerned, and we have overcome that. But that really is the only complaint that I've received, other than the complaints I've received prior to putting in group homes. After they've been established, that's the only complaint I've received, and I'm sure that I would get the complaints. So I'm not so sure that we need an appeal situation. The appeal is always directly to the Ministry of Human Resources, and it can be taken care of there. There can always be an appeal to the minister.

I agree that the neighbours should have a very real opportunity for input to the planning for group homes. I'd like to involve them more than on an appeal situation. I'd like to involve them more on an ongoing advisory council. I really like that idea and I'd like to pursue that with the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour. I think there's great value in that. I'd be pleased to have the Ministry of Municipal Affairs work with the Ministry of Human Resources to study the idea of a model bylaw. On first reaction, I have to say that if we can, without putting into statutes — either at the local or provincial level — any kind of enforcement sort of thing, I think I would prefer to do it so that we really do have that real neighbourhood input. I think if we could try that first and then simultaneously do a study of those other model bylaws particularly the one you mention in Ontario, and see what their experience has been, I'd be pleased to look into it. But I think I'd really like to try that voluntary... which I suggest to you is working quite well. I'd like to assure those people in North Vancouver–Seymour, who are at this very moment struggling with decision-making on a group home, that they will certainly have continued and ongoing input regarding the group home that we hope to establish in North Vancouver–Seymour.

May I say that one of the very first meetings that I attended as Minister of Human Resources was one with all of the community representatives in North Vancouver. That goes back about a year and a half now. They were very clear then that we needed more facilities for young people. So that was their plea on the one side. We needed more facilities, and the group-living situation is an answer to that. I know that they would be just as keen to have that established. I thank the member for those concerns, and I would certainly be pleased to work with him on this ongoing advisory council and also on the subject of a bylaw study with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the question has arisen in committee as to what scope of debate is permissible under vote 125, presently before the committee.

The function of the committee is to determine whether or not certain sums of money asked for by the Crown shall be voted. In response to this request, the committee is entitled to fully inquire into the administrative actions of the particular minister on behalf of whose ministry moneys have been requested.

The obvious problem confronting the committee is that no sums are identified in the estimates for the office of Deputy Premier. The point has been made that the position of Deputy Premier is analogous to that of an acting minister, as provided for by sections 11 and 12 of the Constitution Act. I will not read the entire sections 11 and 12, but I will point out in section 11(1): "Any of the powers and duties assigned by law to any of the officials constituting the Executive Council may by order in council be assigned and transferred for any period to any other of the officials." It then goes on with four other sections, as well as section 12, dealing with acting ministers.

It must be self-evident that a deputy normally functions in that capacity only in the absence of the individual for whom he deputizes.

It is the opinion of the Chair that debate in Committee of Supply, when the vote of the Minister of Human Resources is under consideration, must of necessity be limited to the administrative actions of the Minister of Human Resources, except insofar as that minister on specific, identifiable occasions may have taken administrative action in the absence of the Premier, or on such occasion as the minister was demonstrably designated by the Premier to act on his behalf with respect to a specific matter.

If debate of administrative actions by the minister as Deputy Premier were not allowed, the committee would improperly be denied an opportunity to canvass those actions. Such debate must, however, be within the limits indicated, namely that the minister was demonstrably acting specifically in her capacity as Deputy Premier. If such a proper basis has not been established for a particular line of inquiry, the Chair must intervene in the interest of orderly debate. To hold otherwise could clearly lead to a full repetition of any and all matters already debated under the vote of the Premier. It is a fundamental rule of procedure and practice that the House does not embark upon a second debate of a matter already canvassed.

I hope that in some regard this will be of assistance to members in identifying the areas of debate where some guidance from the Chair has been sought.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this makes the job in the past almost impossible, because there is no way that the public of the province or the opposition would have any way of knowing those times that the minister is designated by the Premier. Up until now it has been a designation that was all-inclusive — Deputy Premier all the time. Now we find out by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is only the Deputy Premier from time to time. As the minister said, it is very, very seldom.

So we now find out that we do not have a full-time Deputy Premier in the province. I would like to ask the Chair's guidance as to whether or not there should be a written communication to the official opposition, and possibly to the public, any time that the Premier so designates. It doesn't necessarily have to be this minister, obviously. Most of the time, if your ruling is correct, we have no Deputy Premier. There would have to be some way of the Premier letting the people of the province know when indeed he is not acting as the Premier as such, and that a Deputy Premier has been designated.

I would have to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to take under advisement that the title of Deputy Premier be struck from the

[ Page 3821 ]

door of this minister, from the designation of seats in this House and from the letterhead on her stationery. There has to be a clear definition if this is to be the ruling. I would ask that you bring back a ruling as to whether or not this minister should be allowed to designate herself Deputy Premier on stationery, in the House and on the door of her office, when she has not been so designated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the request goes well beyond the scope and authority of the Chair. However, on the member's point, it is clearly within the prerogative of a member, during estimates, to ask and inquire as to whether any specific action was done at that time. Other than that, the Chair is bound to obey and enforce the rules of the House, but it does not preclude a member from asking whether or not at any particular time any particular action did fall within that scope.

MR. LEA: That's an impossible task for us, Mr. Chairman, and it's an impossible task for the public. We have now found out that over the course of the last four and a half years, for the majority of the time — 99 percent of the time — this minister was not the Deputy Premier; she had not been designated Deputy Premier. An impossible ruse has been played on the people of this province, as far as I am concerned. We now know that we do not have a Deputy Premier in this province. That leaves us in the impossible situation in estimates of trying to sort out the time that she was Deputy Premier and the time that she wasn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While the Chair may be sympathetic to the request of the member, the Chair is powerless to do other than to enforce our standing rules and the traditions of this parliament. I have tried to bring back to members some guidance which would allow them some flexibility and guidance in questioning. Other than that, hon. members, the Chair is certainly powerless to carry out the requests or wishes indicated by the member.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I think you have left the opposition and the whole House with a dilemma. If we accept the statement and your interpretation of the rules of the House, then I think perhaps the validity of the trade and convention centre legislation has to be questioned as to its legitimacy. A bill was brought before this House by the Deputy Premier. If we follow and accept your interpretation of the standing rules, that bill should never have been brought before the House and it could be challenged as to its legality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, the point of order is received by the Chair, but it certainly goes well beyond the scope and authority of the Chair to comment on that point of order. That again will be something that will be determined in a theatre other than the one presently before us.

On the same point of order, the Deputy Premier.

MR. LEA: How do you know?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refer to the points of order that have just been made by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). One said that it would be impossible for the opposition to ascertain when the Deputy Premier was acting specifically for the Premier, I believe you said in the ruling you just made. Then the member for Burnaby North followed by saying that it was a dilemma because, looking at the bill that is before the House under the name of the Deputy Premier.... That was in question now. Well, on the last point, may I just ease the member's mind; I know it is of great concern to her. That was very specifically established — acting specifically for the Premier in that regard — and therefore it falls within the ruling, so we shouldn't have to waste the House's time on that.

In regard to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I take it.... I'd like to help with it, because it's really been the basis of the discussion over my estimates. I need that kind of assistance from the Chair. The reason I said that I think it would be difficult for me to do something that wasn't done under the former administration.... As I understand it, when there was a Deputy Premier designated and sworn in by the Lieutenant-Governor, along with the Minister of Education, in the former administration.... It was never debated in this House. So this is unusual and new.

I sympathize with the Chair as well as with the opposition in trying to say which question should be asked. But I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that I have no difficulty answering questions on any of the responsibilities I have taken on for the government of the province of British Columbia. But I also suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if we follow the line of questioning the opposition has tried to pursue.... There is no question that I should have to be responsible for answering questions which are not within the responsibility of my ministry. It would be difficult; it would be going through the total line of questioning; it would mean that I would have to go through all of the Premier's estimates, which he very adequately goes through on his own.

Mr. Chairman, I really seek counsel from you in that regard, if you would like this debate to continue. If it eases the atmosphere in the House in any way, please know that to the best of my ability, and with your ruling in mind that a proper basis be established for when I am acting specifically in that role, I would be happy to answer anything.

MR. HOWARD: What effectively has happened now is that the Deputy Premier, as a result of your ruling, is able to be selective as to whether or not she wants to deal with something that's posed to her in her capacity as Deputy Premier. It leaves the entire choice and discretion in her hands and in her mind as to whether she even wants to deal with the subject matter that might be raised in her capacity and her activity as Deputy Premier, which is continuous. She can stonewall any way she feels like. That type of activity, that type of possibility, I think, militates against the desirability of full, free debate here.

For instance, as an example, can the minister tell us whether she was Deputy Premier on September 14, 1979? I would like to ask her a question with respect to that. I obviously can't if I don't know that she was Deputy Premier on that day. Can she tell the committee that? She doesn't know. She doesn't remember.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You rose on a point of order. You're using as an example, I imagine....

MR. HOWARD: The answer is she doesn't know, obviously. She said that yesterday. We went through a similar process. She said: "I don't remember." That selective memory is designed to do nothing else but to prevent the

[ Page 3822 ]

people of this province knowing through their elected representatives in the Legislature what kind of dirty tricks the deputy premier is up to. That's what the result is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is made very well by the member. Again, hon. members, while we are free to ask questions at any time in committee, there is nothing that says that an answer must be given, whether it be in this case or in other cases where there is a clear delineation of administrative responsibility. It is simply not fair to leave the Chair in a position when that responsibility, both for questioning and answering, must be taken by members of the House, and I want to assure members of this House that the Chair is not going to run any kind of interference or flack for either the government or for the opposition. It is the responsibility of members of this House in committee to debate and to get answers on those matters. I have given some guidance, guidance that's the best we can possibly come up with at this time, based on the precedents of this House. I would ask all hon. members to give that guidance their due consideration in debate. That at no time precludes any member of this House from asking a question. Whether or not the question would be deemed to be in order would be dependent upon the answer the Chair receives from an hon. member. But it is not for the Chair to determine, nor will it be for the Chair to determine, where a specific area would so fall.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It can't be the responsibility of the Chair, hon. members. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: On the same point of order, I think that what your counsel has done is.... The import of your decision is that now the Premier has to file with this House the dates of every occasion on which he designated the Deputy Premier to act on his behalf.

MR. KING: By order-in-council.

MS. BROWN: It has to be filed with this House. That is the only way that the Legislature and all of the people of British Columbia will know when the Deputy Premier is indeed acting as Deputy Premier.

The other question I'd like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is that having been sworn in as the Deputy Premier of the province, how can the Speaker then rule that, in fact, she is only the Deputy Premier on those occasions when the Premier designated her to be the Deputy Premier? Funds have been spent to put a plaque on the door, a rug on the floor and state letterhead on the stationery. If that has occurred, then certainly holding this minister accountable in terms of her role and her position as Deputy Premier is one of the responsibilities of this Legislature. That is a responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Are we still on points of order, hon. member? The second member for Surrey on a point of order. One moment, hon. member, is the member for Dewdney also on a point of order?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I will recognize you following the second member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: The point of order I wish to raise comes from the point of order that was addressed by the minister herself. In your ruling, and for future behaviour of the committee, the minister said that she was sworn in as Deputy Premier and referred to the fact that that had also taken place with the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I know that that didn't take place in the case of the member for Burnaby North. The member for Burnaby North was sworn in as the Minister of Education, and continued to hold that portfolio until 1975.

The administration between 1972 and 1975 certainly did not swear anybody into the position of Deputy Premier. I'd like you, Mr. Chairman, to satisfy yourself as to whether indeed the person currently claiming to be the Deputy Premier has in fact been sworn in as Deputy Premier. That makes a difference as to whether or not the committee pursues this line of questioning. If indeed the member was sworn in as the Deputy Premier of this province, then I think all the questions are in order. If she was not, then I share your discomfort in dealing with this — and her discomfort. The bill would therefore be somewhat imperfect, I think, although that would be a matter for some determination by people more learned in law then I.

I certainly think the fact that the minister claims that she has been sworn in as Deputy Deputy has some bearing upon your ruling. It would have some bearing on my conduct in examination of this member's activities over the past while. I think that should be ascertained as soon as possible.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, there have been many times when I could have entered into the debate on the points of order, but I thought that so trivial a matter would have gradually fallen by the wayside. It is of absolutely no consequence. Neither is it worthy of debate in this House or of your time. The word "deputy" is a very clear English word which means "in place of," and that's all. But in the case of the Deputy Premier it is a permanent position authorized by the Premier. The Deputy Premier is to be in place of the Premier whenever the Premier should so choose, to give him latitude to move at will. An analogous situation, of course, is when a minister leaves the province and by order-in-council designates a person in his place — that's a deputy. I do not understand how we can enter into these semantics. The minister has answered all the questions that have been asked. I appeal to the House to let us get on with our business. It's such a simple, trivial matter. We do no good to either side of the House occupying our time in this frivolous debate.

MR. LORIMER: On the same point of order, I would point out that we know the Deputy Premier was appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor, the representative of the Queen. Now we hear that she is only the Deputy Premier on certain days, and we're not really clear what days those are.

I would like to pose a question to Mr. Speaker; maybe you can clarify the matter over the weekend — you might be able to consider it. We have a bill — Bill 23 — called the Trade and Convention Centre Act, presented by the Deputy Premier. We had second reading some weeks ago. Now I want to know whether on that particular day when we had second reading the minister in charge was, in fact, the Deputy Premier on that particular day. Because if not, it would seem to me that we might have to go through second reading

[ Page 3823 ]

again. I was wondering if you would take that under advisement for the weekend and maybe have an answer for us on Monday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I could briefly attempt to answer at this particular moment the questions posed by the members. But I will reserve that over the weekend.

Again, I must not hesitate to point out that it is a fundamental rule of procedure and practice of the House that the House does not embark upon a second debate of a matter already canvassed. That is one of the prime and guiding rules of this and all Commonwealth legislatures.

MR. BARBER: The official opposition believes that the subjects of autism, and the difficulties of organizing group homes that are welcome in neighbourhoods, are important. We also believe that the credibility, honour and public reputation of ministers and of the government are important.

For the first part of the debate which we have been proposing to lead on this estimate, we are dealing with the issue of the credibility, or the lack of it; the integrity, or the lack of it; the public respect, or the lack of it, of the government occasionally headed by the Deputy Premier.

The office of Deputy Premier used to be taken seriously in this province, but after today it won't be, because we now learn that we don't actually have a Deputy Premier except for a few minutes from time to time when the Premier is in Seattle, Japan or other places.

The office of the Deputy Premier has been taken down a few notches by the Chairman today. I'm sure that comes as no pleasant surprise at all to the Deputy Premier, who thought she was the real Deputy Premier and now learns that she's only occasionally the Deputy Premier. One wonders whether or not we will now see put on the door, and removed from time to time, the little sign that says "Deputy Premier," and "Deputy Premier" taken off the stationery and put back on again.

On October 12, 1979, the Victoria Times said as follows:

"Deputy Premier, Grace McCarthy" — you'll know that this is when the Premier was out of the country — "said that the Social Credit Lettergate scandal is finished, and she is angry about stories which suggest the resignation of researcher Jack Kelly is just the tip of the iceberg. McCarthy said Thursday that media suggestions that the dirty tricks campaign reflect on her office are 'foolishness' and added that reporters who continue to pursue the matter are 'sick'. "

She offered a similarly high opinion of a Channel 8 reporter yesterday in the corridor, and we had the pleasure of watching that last night on the news. Apparently anyone who disagrees with the political aims of the occasional Deputy Premier is "sick."

I would remind the committee that the people of British Columbia well remember the integrity of a claim made by that person a few years ago when she — for whatever motives — invented, fabricated, created out of whole cloth, an utterly false story about a so-called secret police force that had been created — she alleged without a single shred of evidence to support it — by the then New Democrat administration of this province.

Now the credibility of this minister is an important concern for people who have memories. Fortunately for this Parliament the official opposition has a long memory — a very long memory. We recall what that minister invented out of whole cloth when she pretended, in a way that could not be substantiated with a single fact, that the Barrett administration had created a secret police force in British Columbia. She alleged that it had been armed with high-powered rifles and provided with high-powered cars, and further alleged, without a single factual piece of evidence to back it up, that vast warehouses had been created to house the bullets and bombs allegedly granted to this nonexistent secret police force.

Now the same Deputy Premier — who occasionally acts as Deputy Premier, we're now informed — accused reporters of being "sick" for having the nerve to ask on what factual basis she claimed that she knew nothing about dirty tricks, knew nothing about Mr. Lenko's good works for Social Credit, and knew nothing about every other aspect of the scandals that have plagued this administration for almost a year.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: The reporters, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are a lot of interruptions here, hon. members. Please, could we have quiet in the House? The hon. first member for Victoria continues.

MR. BARBER: Now the reporters had the common sense to remember the total nonsense created for political purposes by that person when she invented a secret police force that did not exist at any time in the history of this province. They therefore had the good judgment to ask a few penetrating questions, and especially to ask that she offer some evidence, some factual basis, for her claims of blissful innocence in the whole dirty tricks affair. Well, no wonder the reporters were pressing her a bit to offer facts, because, in fact, all she'd done before was simply invent, for malicious political purposes, a phony story about a secret police force that never did exist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I still have to maintain the relevancy rule; we have decided in the committee what is relevant. The member did begin debate on a relevant item, one that falls within the Chairman's ruling as to the administrative actions of the Deputy Premier while the Premier was away.

The member now seems to be straying from the relevance of the vote before us. I would ask the hon. member, in the tradition of this House, to come back to the vote before us and the administrative actions of the Minister of Human Resources and her capacity and administrative actions when she is Deputy Premier.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, is she Deputy Premier today?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Well, we have to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order. I have to recognize the first member for Victoria, who still maintains the floor and, of course, who can ask any question he wishes

[ Page 3824 ]

about the administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before us now.

MR. BARBER: It may not precisely be a point of order, but it's a darned good question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you can enter into debate. We're in Committee of Supply.

MR. BARBER: I hesitate to ask the occasional Deputy Premier if she is the Deputy Premier today, because she might not remember. She has a problem remembering what she did or did not do, who she did or did not meet, and what instructions she did or did not give in regard to a number of issues.

Now we know that the Deputy Premier has been severely chastised by her own colleagues. I'll name them by their surnames because they hold different positions currently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you would refer to hon. members in the tradition of the House — either by the riding they represent or the portfolio they hold.

MR. BARBER: Well, by riding then. Indeed, that's very easy — the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Each of them was profoundly critical of the ridiculous and inept way in which the occasional Deputy Premier handled the dirty tricks.... Shall I say "coverup" or is that unparliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: I withdraw that. ...handled the dirty tricks elaborate explanations, no matter how self-contradictory or how often altered, offered by Social Credit from time to time to excuse away what everyone in the province knows darned well they did during the last campaign and perhaps during other campaigns as well. I'm interested in the opinion of the occasional Deputy Premier about the remarks made by the member for Kamloops and the first member for Surrey, who were damning in their indictment of her ineptness, bungling and mishandling of the dirty tricks explanations.

Let me read from the Vancouver Sun dated November 17, 1979. I confess that I don't know if she was occasionally the Deputy Premier on that day or not, but nonetheless we would welcome her opinion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will certainly allow you to ask the question, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. According to the Vancouver Sun, which the minister may also think is sick for having the nerve to print these things, the member for Kamloops, then the Minister of Environment, said:

"'I think if you look at the enormity of the offence itself, which, on a scale from zero to ten, is probably around three or four, and consider that it is still going on now, a couple of months after the matter came to light, I think you have to question whether we, as a party, handled this thing particularly brilliantly.' Mair said: 'Obviously we would not be in the same situation we are now if it had been well handled.' "

Who was doing the handling at the time? It was the occasional Deputy Premier. What does that say about her ability as Deputy Premier to speak for the government which she occasionally deputizes as Premier for, although we don't quite know when, but maybe we'll find out if the Premier bothers to tell us or her. It seems to us that one of the reasons why Social Credit, apart from being a coalition of much opportunity and no principle, is in so much trouble in this province is because the Deputy Premier panicked in September and October of last year. She panicked when faced with the gradual unravelling of a whole amazing story of deliberately, deceptively, determinedly planned schemes and efforts by Social Credit to win the last election under false pretences. They did so — the Deputy Premier might be interested in commenting on this if she has time today to do so; she will certainly have time on Monday — by concocting phony baloney letters, by handing out thousand-dollar bills and doing a lot of other things which the Deputy Premier, if she was Deputy Premier then, might have been told about, but about which, if she was not Deputy Premier, she would surely not have known anything.

This government is in trouble today and has been in the midst of a scandal for almost a year running without letup because, in part, of the incompetence and the bungling of the Deputy Premier. We have all this on the authority of the first member for Surrey and the last member for Kamloops.

Now the Premier himself — was he the Premier that day? — said that he wasn't very satisfied either with the fashion in which it had been handled during his absence. Who was doing the handling during his absence, Mr. Chairman? It was the occasional Deputy Premier. What was she doing? Well, she was telling us the reporters who asked these questions were sick; they had no right to pursue these things. What nerve! Imagine — asking her to provide facts! Why didn't they take her on her word that there was a secret police force? Just because there was no reason they shouldn't disbelieve her, just because she had no facts to offer was no reason to discredit her; just because there were no warehouses, there were no brown shirts, there were no bullets, there were no rifles, was no reason to call into question the word of the Deputy Premier, when occasionally she acted as such.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could get back to the administrative actions of the Deputy Premier while Deputy Premier.

MR. BARBER: One of which was to cover for the Premier in his absence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or cover up.

MR. BARBER: I didn't say "cover up"; I said "cover."

But the people of British Columbia know for themselves, because they have good judgment and common sense, what was really going on during those desperate months in the fall when Social Credit was desperately trying to explain its peculiar actions. The Deputy Premier was so desperate that she phoned the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — it is alleged — a dozen times in the space of one 24-hour period to instruct poor old Jack about who to fire from the Social Credit caucus.

[ Page 3825 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get those statistics?

MR. BARBER: From one of your former associates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One moment, hon. member. Will all hon. members please come to order. There is a great deal of side conversation going on. The Chair cannot permit interruptions of the speaker, out of courtesy for our parliament. The hon. first member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the point of order I want to raise with you relates, I think, to standing order 20. If you find disorder in the House, you are required to deal with it. The member for Omineca is again today the persistent interrupter — from his seat — of the proceedings. I think that if the Chair would just take the occasion once to toss him out of the House on his ear, he'd learn to behave himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot accept that point of order. The Chair is quite aware of standing order 20; the Chair is also aware of Sir Erskine May's comments about interruptions in the House. At the point when I made that ruling, I quite clearly heard interruptions. People were interrupting the hon. first member for Victoria from both sides of the House, and that is why I raised my gavel and brought that to the attention of the House.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In any case, the voters will toss out the member for Omineca at the next election, so one way or another....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's maintain relevance.

MR. BARBER: I want to talk about the solicitous way in which the Deputy Premier — who occasionally acts as such — was concerned about the well-being of Ellen McKay at one particular point. This apparently was one of her administrative responsibilities, because we learn from the Vancouver Sun — a reliable journal — that she confirmed during an interview that she had been asking around the Legislature for a way to contact Ms. McKay before she returned to this country. When pressed by the press, she said: "Why not?" — repeating the question several times — "I have attempted to reach her number in order that the caucus chairman, Mr. Kempf, can communicate with her."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please. In spite of the fact that you're reading from a paper, it is courteous to refer to a member in the House by his riding.

MR. BARBER: Oh, come on now! You wouldn't want me to incorrectly interpolate material which Hansard will be quoting verbatim.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continue, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Now she may or may not have been acting as Deputy Premier, but we can presume that she was at least acting as Minister of Human Resources — the numero uno social worker of the province — concerned about the health of poor Ms. McKay; maybe that was her motive. So I'm further interested as to why she took it upon herself, as occasional Deputy Premier, to make it one of her administrative duties to try and get the phone number of Ellen McKay on behalf of the — as it turns out — surprised member for Omineca. It was a charitable thing; maybe she was just playing social worker as Minister of Human Resources. Or maybe she was the Deputy Premier on that day — or both.

Let me continue with the article, precisely as it is printed.

" 'Why not?' she asked, repeating the question several times. 'I have attempted to reach her number in order that the caucus chairman, Mr. Kempf, can communicate with her. I have talked to the caucus chairman. Why not? I want Mr. Kempf to be as prepared as he can.'" Apparently she didn't trust him to be prepared on his own resources; she had to do it for him.

She continues: '' 'It would be unfair to McKay if she stepped off an airplane and ran into one of your television cameras,' she said, pointing at a television reporter."

MR. LEA: It didn't bother McGeer.

MR. BARBER: It didn't bother old punchy over there.

Let me continue with this excellent quote from the past. "Asked why she was spending her time on such a task," — apparently, I interpolate, she made it one of her administrative duties, as occasional Deputy Premier — "McCarthy replied, 'Kempf is in Houston and unable to do his own digging into McKay's whereabouts.' "

They have no telephones in Houston? This is news to B.C. Tel. I checked a little while ago. They have telephones there, unless the mad member for Omineca ripped them all out that week; I doubt that he did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to the vote, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, hon. members for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), I must caution you that you cannot interrupt a member when he is speaking.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I continue with this wonderful story. " 'The reporters' questions,' she said, 'were just incredible.' " Here she goes again. " 'I really don't understand. Are you somehow insinuating that I should have no contact with the caucus chairman?' However, McCarthy's efforts on his behalf came as a surprise to Mr. Kempf, reached by telephone in Houston."

Maybe they only have one-way phones in Houston; you can phone in but you can't phone out. Perhaps the member hasn't paid his bills and he couldn't phone out; but the Vancouver Sun or the occasional Deputy Premier could phone in.

One wonders what the motive was of the occasional Deputy Premier to search out Ellen McKay. I hope we find out on Monday. In the meantime, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 3826 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.