[ Page 3827 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Revised Statutes Correction Act (No. 2), 1980 (Bill 61). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 3827

Oral Questions

Eckardt commission report. Mr. Lauk –– 3827

Application for North Delta neighbourhood pub. Mr. Hall –– 3829

Fire safety in rest homes. Mr. Cocke –– 3829

Labour dispute in brewing industry. Ms. Sanford –– 3829

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

On vote 125: minister's office –– 3829

Mr. Lea

Mr. Cocke

Mr. King

Mrs. Dailly

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Segarty

Mr. Barber

Mr. Howard

Division on the amendment to vote 125 –– 3845

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mussallem

Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 64). Hon. Mr.Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 3851

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 3851

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, because of my particular affection for those of Irish descent, I have the honour to introduce today some relations of the member for Kootenay. The name is not Segarty; instead it's his sister, Geraldine Mullen, her husband Dan, her son Jason and her daughter Karen. They are visiting from Ontario, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) I'd like to introduce three people from the riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain: Morley and Bertie Beiser and their son Brendan. They are in the members' gallery.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the first member for Vancouver Centre in welcoming Brendan and his parents.

Also, I wonder if I could share a very special happening with the House. Over the weekend our member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) became a grandfather for the very first time. I would like to ask the House to congratulate him and to welcome William Ryan Ritchie as one of our newest British Columbians.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, also in the members' gallery are some constituents and long-time friends of mine, Peter and Vera Wiwchar, along with their son and my godson, David Peter Wiwchar.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would like to mention that when the B.C. Lions win a B.C. championship it is a matter of great rejoicing, as it should be, but there are also some little fellows in this province who sometimes stride forward. That happened over the weekend when the Enderby Legionnaires baseball team became the senior B baseball champions in British Columbia. They will represent our province in the western Canadian championship in Glenboro, Manitoba, next weekend. The House might like to know that the Enderby Legionnaires also represented British Columbia in 1977, when they had an MLA who cared. I would ask that the hon. members congratulate their manager, Jerry Reimer, and all the members of that great senior B team from that great community of Enderby, and wish them well in their championship.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, we have three visitors from Vancouver South. Eugene and Sandy Schwartz are accompanied by a regular visitor, Mr. David Young, who is their tour guide for today. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have two constituents from Fort Langley in the gallery today, Craig Seaton of Trinity Western College, and the president of Trinity Western College, Dr. Neil Snider. I'd like to ask everyone to make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring to the House's attention at this time — and I think I can say this without much fear of being contradicted — that one of the best-liked people in this Legislature celebrated a fortieth anniversary with his wife last week. Also, the same member is in his thirty-first year of continuous public service to the province of British Columbia –– 20 years as the mayor of Quesnel and an MLA in this Legislature since 1969. I'll tell you that the people of Quesnel turned out on Saturday night and gave Alex and Gertrude Fraser a rousing fortieth anniversary party. I'd like us to join them today.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there must always be a voice for those who are voiceless in this chamber. I get up to add my congratulations to the minister and certainly my personal addition of respects to him on behalf of his wife, who has kept that partnership going for 41 years. The official opposition thanks her very much.

Introduction of Bills

REVISED STATUTES
CORRECTION ACT (NO. 2), 1980

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Revised Statutes Correction Act (No. 2), 1980.

Bill 61 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.

Oral Questions

ECKARDT COMMISSION REPORT

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Attorney-General. It is our information that the Eckardt report was printed by the Queen's Printer on June 16, 1978, at which time copies were taken by commission staff to Vancouver. It was after June 17 that an emergency meeting of the commissioner and commission staff was called to meet at Laurel Point Inn on June 18 and 19. Why did the Vogel report not reflect these facts?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can only respond by saying that the Vogel report does not confirm those facts because they're wrong.

MR. LAUK: Would the Attorney-General indicate which of those facts are wrong? Are all of them wrong?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm advised that the printing that took place at the Queen's Printer on June 16 was only a portion of the report.

MR. LAUK: Did the investigation of the Deputy Attorney-General determine what became of the copies printed on June 16 that were taken to Vancouver by commission staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3828 ]

MR. LAUK: Did the investigation reveal why Mr. Eckardt signed the transmittal letter dated June 17, 1978, for his report, which was not completed until June 20, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it did not, Mr. Speaker. That is a question that should be addressed to the commissioner.

MR. LAUK: Would the Attorney-General indicate whether the commissioner was interviewed by Mr. Vogel or any of his staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, he was.

MR. LAUK: Has the Attorney-General a copy of that interview available to the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: My understanding is that Mr. Prelypchan interviewed several witnesses and copies were taken and transmitted back to them. Are those copies not available to the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in taking the minutes of evidence the process was that the statements were prepared and sent to the people who were interviewed for the purpose of their checking the accuracy. It is not the intention to release them to this House.

MR. LAUK: With reference to the evening of June 19, 1978, page 6 of the Vogel report, in the last paragraph, states: "It is important to note that the work being done at the Laurel Point Inn on this evening was restricted to the final preparation of population tables and indexes required for the final copy of the interim report." Yet the Eckardt report states on page 76: "Population figures were prepared and completed by the central statistics bureau on June 16, 1978." Has the Attorney-General an explanation for this discrepancy?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that during the course of the interview it was established that the central statistics bureau delivered their last population statistics during the early evening of June 19.

MR. LAUK: Has the Attorney-General an explanation for that discrepancy? It appears on page 76 in the actual report of Mr. Eckardt that the statistics were completed on June 16, 1978.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that the statistics bureau delivered their final statistics in the early evening of June 19.

MR. LAUK: Is the Attorney-General satisfied that there are no other inaccuracies in the interim report of the commissioner?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: None disclosed by any interviews with which I'm familiar, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Further, the paragraph just quoted from page 6 of the Vogel report stated that work was also restricted to the final preparation of indexes "required for the final copy of the interim report." Yet no indexes are provided in the Eckardt report. Can the Attorney-General explain that discrepancy?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I can't, Mr. Speaker. I'll be happy to take the question as notice.

MR. LAUK: On page 4 of the Vogel report it states in the second paragraph that the mapping branch of the Ministry of Environment and the Queen's Printer did not maintain work logs or production records "which would make it possible to precisely reconstruct work sequences." On page 5 of the Vogel report it states: "While most of the mapping division's work on the electoral divisions for the parts of the province other than Vancouver were completed on June 16, the production of the master copy of the greater Vancouver ridings drawn from the new legal descriptions which had been prepared by Mrs. Robbins through Sunday night and Monday morning were completed on June 19." Can the minister explain this discrepancy within the Vogel report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's not a discrepancy within the report. The report states accurately what occurred. While there are no logs kept by the mapping division, the matter was resolved during the course of interviews of personnel who were involved in the production of the maps.

MR. LAUK: On January 16, 1980, the Attorney-General announced that Mr. Prelypchan, director of civil law for the Ministry of the Attorney-General, was conducting an investigation into allegations against the Eckardt royal commission or persons who may have interfered with it in a political way. Can the Attorney-General indicate why Mr. Prelypchan's name does not appear anywhere in the report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of making such an announcement.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister confirm that Mr. Prelypchan interviewed all of the key witnesses on commission staff with respect to this investigation, took their statements, provided copies of their statements to those interviewed, and that he provided a report to the Attorney-General's department after completion?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The bulk of the interviews, I am informed, were done by Mr. Prelypchan, but interviews were also conducted by Deputy Attorney-General Vogel, and by both of them together.

MR. LAUK: It is our information that the report was completed, and then the Deputy Attorney-General followed up with subsequent interviews of the witnesses who had been interviewed by Mr. Prelypchan. Can he confirm that information?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not able to confirm that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General determine that information and provide it to the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be very pleased to.

[ Page 3829 ]

APPLICATION FOR NORTH
DELTA NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB

MR. HALL: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On August 5 the minister gave a series of replies to a number of questions regarding the application — and appeals — for a neighbourhood pub in North Delta, specifically in the area of 88th Avenue and 120th street, the successful applicant being Mr. Olma and an unsuccessful applicant being a Mr. Pridie. In his answer to a question, the minister indicated that Mr. Pridie was before the Delta municipal council and that because his proposal was a ramshackle affair Mr. Pridie was twice unanimously turned down by the council. Mr. Pridie has since denied that allegation. I wonder if the minister now wishes to change his statement.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I said that it was unanimously turned down, but I don't think that's the argument. The information I was given was that council had twice considered the application and had twice rejected it. If the second member for Surrey believes the information is incorrect, I'd be pleased to investigate it, and if it's incorrect I'd certainly advise the House.

MR. HALL: The minister certainly said that. He said he was twice unanimously turned down by the council because his proposal was "a kind of ramshackle affair" — those are the minister's words.

Far from suffering the opposition of municipal officials, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pridie has produced a letter, dated September 15, 1977, from the Delta municipal clerk to the liquor licensing director, in which Mr. Pridie is advised: "The Delta municipal council has no objection to the establishment of the proposed neighbourhood pub in the northern portion of the Kennedy shopping centre, located at 88th Avenue and 120th Street in this municipality." Does the minister now wish to change his story?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, Mr. Speaker. I'd rather verify that myself, thank you.

MR. HALL: While the minister is verifying all of the answers he gave on August 5, perhaps he would check the Blues, check his statement, and then come back with the proper, correct and truthful story.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd be pleased to follow the advice of the second member for Surrey, and if the information which was provided to me is incorrect, I'll certainly acknowledge that in the House. I should point out that Mr. Pridie was not denied the application in conjunction with the successful application of Mr. Olma. The two were separated by a considerable time and, in fact, were heard by different people. The two were not together at any one time.

But I'll be pleased to look into that information, and if the information proves incorrect, I'll be pleased to acknowledge that in the House. Perhaps the member would take it upon himself to investigate the charges of the Olma application, and offer an apology if that turns out to be incorrect.

FIRE SAFETY IN REST HOMES

MR. COCKE: This is a question to the Attorney-General. Regulation 5(d) of the Community Care Facility Act requires that fire drills be held in long-term care facilities once a month. Of the 631 facilities in B.C. only five are complying with the regulation. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that each long-term care facility operator complies with that regulation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the member for New Westminster for providing me with this information. I'll take the question as notice and provide a reply from the fire commissioner.

MR. COCKE: I have a new question for the minister. Can the minister now tell the House whether he has decided to instruct the fire marshal to implement the recommendations of the Hospital Employees Union with respect to emergency evacuation of long-term care facilities'?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I responded to the member's question on this subject a week ago, advising him that officials of the office of the fire commissioner would be discussing with the Hospital Employees Union their brief and their concerns. I have not yet had a report, but as soon as I have it from the fire commissioner I'll be happy to provide it to the member.

LABOUR DISPUTE IN BREWING INDUSTRY

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The brewery workers have requested the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner to assist in ending the current lockout, but management has not agreed to the appointment of such a commissioner. Has the minister met with management to try to persuade them to accept a third party in an attempt to resolve the dispute?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have talked with someone from the management side, and I wanted to know their position as to why they were so adamantly opposed to the appointment of a special mediator or industrial inquiry commissioner.

MS. SANFORD: Was the minister successful at that meeting?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I was not successful. However, I'm not prepared; hence my reluctance to expand the answer to the first question of the hon. member. I really don't think it's advisable for me to discuss in the House discussions which I'm having, have had or hope to have, involving the attempt to bring parties together. Sometimes it's very difficult to do this, either in the House or in the press, as the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) will agree.

Orders of the Day

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.

[ Page 3830 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, you'll recall that when I introduced the estimates last week I said that the deputy minister was on vacation. Today we are going to have the deputy minister in the House to assist in the estimates of the Human Resources ministry. I just wanted to pay tribute to Mr. John Noble, who will soon be with us in the House, and to say what a good administrative job he has always done on behalf of the province of British Columbia. I am pleased to be associated with him in the ministry. In the debate last week I think that we covered a couple of things in regard to the Ministry of Human Resources — this very important ministry which, as I said earlier, touches the lives of each and every British Columbian. I hope that we will have some very constructive suggestions on this particular portfolio. I know the House will also want to pay tribute to Mr. Noble's service to the ministry.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think that at this point in the minister's estimates it would serve a purpose, without being repetitive, to sum up, to see where we are and where we go from here, to review the information and the lack of information that we have received so far. We began by informing the House that we would be dealing with the two different aspects of this minister's responsibilities — as Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources. During the course of our probing the minister with questions in terms of her duties as Deputy Premier, it became a procedural wrangle in the House. The exact limits that we were allowed in our debate surrounding the duties of the Deputy Premier had to be decided in a ruling by the Deputy Speaker.

We were taken just a little bit by surprise because since the Social Credit formed the government in 1975 everyone in the province had assumed that when people were speaking about this minister we were speaking about the Deputy Premier. There was never a denial from the government, the Premier or this minister that she was the Deputy Premier at all times. When it became opportune for the minister to not answer questions surrounding some of the areas of her responsibilities — or what we had assumed were her responsibilities — and when she found it politically desirable to not assume the mantle of Deputy Premier any longer, she made a statement to this House that, in fact, she is not the Deputy Premier 99 percent of the time.

She likened her role as Deputy Premier to the role of other cabinet ministers who act as a minister from time to time when a minister is out of town or otherwise indisposed. That happens almost every week in the council chamber of the executive council. Almost every week some minister is away somewhere. It is not uncommon for one minister to be the minister of his or her own portfolio and have approximately five — or even up to ten — other ministers who he or she is acting for in an interim way.

I don't believe that it was the conception of the people of this province, certainly not of this House — I believe of both sides of the House — that this minister was not the Deputy Premier all of the time. I think it would be fair to say that they let us think what we wanted, without ever coming out and telling us exactly what the situation has been and is. I think it is important that the people of this province know that for the past four and a half years the person who they considered to be the full-time Deputy Premier was in fact the Deputy Premier only a handful of times and only for short periods of time. Yet the letterhead this minister uses says "Deputy Premier" on it. There is a plaque on her door that suggests she is Deputy Premier all of the time. The seating arrangement in this House has this minister as the Deputy Premier. Anyone in the gallery can take a look at the sheet.

It is ironic that when things got rough this minister would deny being the Deputy Premier very much of the time. Just a weeny, teeny, little bit of the time does she, in fact, act as Deputy Premier. As a matter of fact, the minister says that when she does act as Deputy Premier, she is designated to do that in each instance by the Premier. Yet this minister has offered the House no explanation or evidence that she has ever in fact been designated as Deputy Premier in four and a half years. We believe that she has, in fact, been the Deputy Premier for those four and a half years, and only when it became a political hotseat — the Deputy Premiership — and she was having to answer for and be accountable in this House for the actions that she took as Deputy Premier did she stand up in her place in this House and deny that she is Deputy Premier. I think it's well worth reviewing to find out that after four and a half years the person whom we thought was the Deputy Premier — and as a matter of fact, still do — took her place in this House and denied that she's the Deputy Premier. We know a few people over there who'd like to be the Premier, but we don't know of anyone now who'd like to be Deputy Premier and have the whole thing chopped out from under themselves when the going gets rough.

According to the minister's own testimony in front of this committee, she was the acting Premier at a certain time — designated — and that was when the Premier himself was in Japan and the whole Lettergate and dirty tricks scandal hit this province. At that particular time the minister does admit that she was acting as the Deputy Premier. I think it's well worth it to review the kind of action and lack of action and the manner in which this minister handled the duties that she held during that period of time.

The person in charge was criticized by the Premier for the manner in which she handled the dirty tricks affair. Government was criticized by its own members — by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) — for the manner in which government and the person in charge of government for those days handled themselves during the dirty tricks days.

I can recall, Mr. Chairman, watching a television interview when the reporters went up to this minister, acting as the Deputy Premier of this province, and put some legitimate questions to that minister, who only would — as she says on her button — smile, and say what? She was the first one who raised the term "Watergate" in connection with what's now become Lettergate, or the dirty tricks affair. She was the first one. She said to the reporters: "You reporters are being scandalous. What are you trying to do — make this out to be a Watergate?" The first person who raised Watergate in connection with what is now termed Lettergate was the minister herself.

Did she take it seriously? She may have. But she sure didn't let the people of this province think that she took it seriously. She gave it the back of her hand. Push it under the rug; hopefully it'll go away. Deny. Smile. And tell the reporters they're wrong for asking the questions in the first place.

Her own executive assistant, we find out later, was the person who distributed and put the tapes together surrounding the dirty tricks affair. He subsequently resigned and the minister has never submitted any evidence in this House as to the reason for his resignation. Involved up to his neck, and in hot water, Mr. George Lenko resigned. The minister says

[ Page 3831 ]

that she doesn't feel that she owes the House or the people any explanation. If we want any explanation, ask George Lenko.

Why didn't she, when she was in charge of this province, when it first came to light about the dirty tricks, take some action with Glen Mitchell? Why was Glen Mitchell the only one who didn't resign or get fired? That question has never been answered. He was the person in charge of caucus staff when caucus staff did the dirty deed that they were later fired for. And yet Mr. Glen Mitchell has had no reprimand that we know of, and has never been brought in front of this House.

MR. KING: Maybe his reprimand is that he's working for McGeer.

MR. LEA: Maybe his reprimand is that he's working for the Minister of Science — Mr. Science. Maybe that's reprimand enough.

What I'm trying to point out, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister can deny that she was in charge of things as a full-time Deputy Premier, but even taking that very narrow, myopic view of the times that she was minister, we find an appalling lack of leadership, an appalling lack of sensitivity to what the people in this province, in terms of honesty and political morality.... This minister had an offhand, immature, back-of-the-hand attitude to letters that were forged, sent out of the Social Credit machine, to the fact that tapes had been distributed telling the people of this province who were Social Credit working in an election to use dirty tricks — "We don't mind very much doing that. We've done it before." To look up people's names in the phone books and to forge their names onto letters.... This minister was in charge when it first hit the public, and this minister did nothing except try to shove it under the rug and say that it's all the reporters' fault for bringing those nasty things up.

We now know that the very things those reporters were bringing up were in fact true. It's very difficult to believe that the Deputy Premier — acting, at that time — did not know that it was true. She can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. She either knew that under her stewardship the dirty tricks affair was there and real, and she refused to tell us, which is unpardonable; or she didn't have any idea that they were there and she is not very good at administration or keeping her finger on her duties, and will not tell, and therefore doesn't know what's going on under her direction, and that is unforgivable. She either knew it and hid it, which is unpardonable; or didn't know it, had no idea what was going on around her, which is unforgivable. Either way it's an incompetency that I don't believe the people of this province had any right to receive from a person who is a cabinet minister in this province.

Mr. Chairman, one aspect that I would like to hit, to prove the complete lack of competent judgment on this minister's part, is that when she was the Provincial Secretary and the Deputy Premier on June 19, 1978, when the Eckardt report — according to her — had not come to her, she was silly enough, immature enough, incompetent enough to place herself, as the Deputy Premier and the Provincial Secretary, in the position of having gone up to the room where the Eckardt report was being put together. Even if nothing happened; if she didn't see a map; if she didn't put her finger on it; if she didn't do anything, didn't say anything, but was just nice, it was absolute poor judgment and incompetence for that minister to go to the room in the first place before the report was in — whether it was to say howdy-doody, or to change the report. It was a stupid error for someone who assumes the mantle of Deputy Premier from time to time in this province. It was incompetent, unforgivable and unpardonable that a minister would treat her duties so lightly and so incompetently that she would place herself, and therefore her government, in that position. If they did not interfere with the Eckardt report, they at least appear to have interfered because of the actions of this minister, and therefore call into question the integrity and the honesty of that report that came to this Legislature 24 hours after she was delivered the report.

That is a question she never answered. How, indeed, could you have comprehensive, thick legislation together on the 21st, when she admits — or says — that she only received the report the day before. She never would answer. It was when I pressed that point and asked how it was possible that she took her place in this House and said: "Gee whiz, I fooled you. I'm not the Deputy Premier all the time. Therefore I refuse to answer those questions on the grounds that I wasn't in charge." When pushed further, she would have this House believe that in the last four and a half years she has only been Deputy Premier a handful of times, and each time was for a short time. Yet she likes the notoriety of being Deputy Premier, she likes to go out in public smiling, handing out buttons, looking good and being Deputy Premier.

Only when it got tough, only when it got rough, only when it became untenable for her to hold that office and to maintain her silence that she had to maintain, or incriminate herself all the way down the line, did she pull her last trick out of the bag, and it must have been a sorry one for her. Can you imagine the amount of loss of face and the hurt pride that this minister...? We all know the kind of ego drive that it takes, we all know the kind of pride that this minister has — albeit, in my opinion, false — and we all know her sensitivity to criticism. For her to have to stand in this House because she had to to get out of answering questions and say: "I'm not the Deputy Premier very much of the time...." I believe that if the intensity of doing that could be applied in an equal force to those things that we haven't found out — that she has to keep secret — indeed she must be keeping many secrets; because I believe it was a very deep wound that she suffered personally and politically, from an ego point of view, to have to stand up and admit that she has very seldom been Deputy Premier of this province. It was a bitter pill. We know how hard that must have been, so we know how deep those things are that she must not make public.

Mr. Chairman, all through this she has shown an appalling lack of leadership, an appalling lack of sensitivity to the needs of this province for political morality — all through these episodes of the Eckardt commission and the dirty tricks affair. Then, to finally have to resort to the big admission and admit to the world that she is really not as important as she would have liked to have had us believe.... The question is whether she was that important. Did she, in fact, take part, or is this new story we've now been handed that she's no longer Deputy Premier, and in fact never has been — the last story?

Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that if any other minister had shown such insensitivity, such poor judgment and such poor leadership quality, that minister would have been down the tube. That minister would have been out of the cabinet. But this minister is still there, I would suspect, because of her influence within a party that can deliver votes for leadership

[ Page 3832 ]

conventions. For no other reason is this minister there in any form — as Deputy Premier or minister of anything else. It's only because of her political knowledge of the Social Credit Party and, I believe, her ability to deliver those votes to a leadership convention that she sits where she does today. She is admittedly incompetent, admittedly insensitive, and admittedly lacking any leadership qualities whatsoever, except for those that are put with the bad side of politics, not the good. There's a good and a bad side to politics, and the devious game that has to be played she does well, and therefore maintains her post.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back in history a bit. One of the things that concerns me a great deal is the responsibility of the minister for people who are unable to defend themselves. That is one of her primary responsibilities. Then I review some of the occasions over the past few years when this minister has been directly involved. We wonder about the author of dirty tricks.

I'd like to go back to one of the original dirty tricks. That, Mr. Chairman, was when that minister, out of office, moved around this province, carrying her responsibility as a Socred organizer and telling everybody that the NDP government had a secret police force, had arms stored here, there and everywhere. We asked the Attorney-General, after that government went back into power, if he had discovered any evidence of that. No.

Mr. Chairman, it's that kind of fabrication — deliberate distortion of events — that led us to the point where that party felt, following that kind of leadership from their chief party organizer, that it could move right into the area of false letters.

I want to go back to what two ministers had to say about those letters. One of those ministers was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and he said at the time: "I just don't think it was handled properly." He was talking about the dirty tricks affair. "I'd be telling something other than the truth if I said the matter had been handled correctly." Have we ever had anything like that from the Minister of Human Resources, the Deputy Premier of the province? No.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) said virtually the same kind of thing. He said, with the benefit of hindsight and Monday-morning quarterbacking: "There were measures the party could have taken to put the matter to rest." This party has had an opportunity, through the Premier of the province and through his Deputy Premier, to put the question to rest. But instead of that, Mr. Chairman, all we hear are evasions of the issue.

The issue is very important. It's very important to people who depend on government — not only to provide rules, not only to provide laws, but to be the bulwark and to provide the kind of leadership in this province that is so absolutely necessary.

I don't think that anybody in B.C. can be proud of a moment in time when B.C. becomes the laughing-stock of our entire nation. We're the laughing-stock of this nation just because we cannot put things together. Putting them together, Mr. Chairman, I charge in the wrong way, has been provided the leadership from the Minister of Human Resources, by virtue of some of her actions. Naturally one can't point the finger at the Deputy Premier for everything that occurred. It takes that kind of leadership to get things off the ground, that kind of "win at any cost," and "tell them what we want them to hear." The Attorney-General said in his report that it was a cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible attitude, involving the use of traditional features of newspapers in our society, when he was describing the Lettergate affair.

The person closest to the Deputy Premier in terms of her office and organization around the party was her executive assistant, Mr. Lenko, and finally he found that he had to leave. Who did Mr. Lenko report to? Can anybody convince the people in this province that he did not report on everything, no matter how infinitesimal? There could not have been blindness with respect to what was going on in the meetings where people were led and cajoled into doing what they wouldn't normally do — that is, writing letters under pseudonyms, and not even owning up to their position with respect to the NDP. It's a very sad affair indeed. I was hoping that maybe there would be some light from the Deputy Premier; we got none from the First Minister. How about some light on this subject from the Deputy Premier?

For a number of years we have suggested that an apology would be appropriate for that phony secret police thing that occurred. None has been forthcoming, and I doubt if there will be any today or tomorrow or whenever. It would appear that this minister feels that her cause is so sacred and so precious that she'll do anything at all to further that cause. In politics that's absolute dynamite. Everywhere we see this kind of thing happening, in the United States and from time to time in Canada. Every time we see these sorts of things happening, the whole system of government suffers, the whole democratic process suffers, and people become less and less able to feel confidence in our system. My God, when we threaten that system we're threatening freedom itself.

I suggest that it's time to get up, put the question where it belongs, appropriately apologize and start out on a new foot. This kind of debate can't help but continue as long as we're convinced, as opposition, that there are those in government, particularly in such a high office as Deputy Premier, who are not only not prepared to provide any kind of reason or apology but, in our opinion, are prepared to do it again if they deem it necessary. It's not right. It was mishandled. It was mishandled from start to finish. Unfortunately, we can't say "from start to finish," because it's not finished; it should be finished. Yes, there were cowardly acts; yes, there was unacceptable behaviour, Mr. Chairman. The people who were closest, such as George Lenko's boss, should be providing some leadership in this province and giving some reasoning behind the behaviour of the people whom we can see as being directly involved. Don't forget, most of them have either quit or left, with the exception of Mr. Mitchell. I would hope that we can see the end of the tunnel on this question, and that we can get some decent rationale behind the maps that came out. I can remember my shock when I saw the Eckardt report: three NDP MLAs bite the dust; not one Socred. Not only that, I saw the most amazing map of a constituency I've ever seen, and that is the map of Little Mountain.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point we are discussing and canvassing a vote that has already been before the House, and it is a matter involving legislation. Also, for the member's edification, I will read a ruling by the Chairman made on Friday, with respect to debating the administrative actions of the Deputy Premier when we have the vote of the Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources before

[ Page 3833 ]

us. Debate must be within limits of administrative actions, "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" when we are in Committee of Supply.

MR. COCKE: I certainly understand the ruling. However, it's going to be very difficult without being provided with a list not only of the days but of the hours that the Deputy Premier performed that particular function. How can one assume anything other than the fact that she assumes that function at all times? I read orders-in-council from time to time, and I see oftentimes the Deputy Premier is down as the presiding officer of cabinet, so we know that on those days, or at least for some hours during those days, she performed the function, but neither you nor I know specifically. While the Premier wasn't about to own up to any participation in what was obviously serious or bad behaviour, we can think of no one else but the Deputy Premier, who must have been in charge at some time. My rationale is as follows: this Deputy Premier has been a star Socred organizer for years, and I defy anybody in that party to take her on. That's where orders often come from. If she didn't provide those orders, or if she didn't provide that kind of leadership, let her say so, but let her tell us who did.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, what has all this to do with the estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources? Do we have to listen to a whole lot of political talk which really doesn't relate to the estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. Committee of Supply does allow us to debate the administrative actions of the department and of the vote before us. I have already indicated to all members the ruling of Mr. Chairman on Friday with respect to the office of Deputy Premier, and I'll say it again: it must be demonstrated that the minister was acting specifically in the capacity of Deputy Premier. That has to be applied to Committee of Supply. Committee of Supply is not allowed to do anything else but discuss administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before us.

MR. COCKE: Were I the Minister of Municipal Affairs in this government, I would be equally sensitive.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're not, and you never will be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: You're right; I never will be. I suggest that I would be equally sensitive. I would be ashamed; I would wish that I wasn't part of an organization that let something like this happen. If you want to bury it, you're not going to bury it on the floor of this House.

I just want to say that the author of the secret police, the author of the arms hidden out in this province, the author of that dirty trick, should stand up now and tell us whether or not George Lenko told her what was going on in his capacity as a party organizer — as well as working for the the Provincial Secretary. He was both; he was working for that minister. If anybody indicated to me that there was an allegiance, and that nothing would occur that the minister wasn't immediately informed of, then I'm quite wrong. But I don't think I am, Mr. Chairman.

A lot of people went down the tube — not one elected official, but a lot of people working for that government, including the grey eminence, Dan Campbell. We're talking about serious situations. In any event, let's hear what the minister — the Deputy Premier of this province— has to say.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs has a twitch.

Last Friday I asked the Minister of Human Resources a number of questions relating to her responsibilities as Deputy Premier. First of all, I should establish the basis which the Chair has expressed some concern about, as to whether or not she indeed had those responsibilities during the period I referred to. I refer to a Colonist article of November 26, 1979, entitled: '''I'd Have Cleaned up Mess': Bennett on Dirty Tricks."

"Premier Bennett said Wednesday that if he'd have 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 MacKay and Jack Kelly, who advocated playing dirty in the last provincial election campaign, were also paid from the 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. "

Mr. Chairman, the Legislature has still never received answers to those questions. And it is my humble view that every member of the executive council of government is responsible to the Legislature, and through the opposition members to the public. Indeed, that is the role of the opposition — to hold government accountable for administrative policy, for spending policy, for legislative authority. Without a due recognition of all of those three areas of accountability, the legislative process becomes redundant. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that neither you nor any member of this institution would want to usurp or in any way impair the traditional — and the primary — function of parliament in that way.

Now the Premier was away. The Premier said he would have "cleaned up" the dirty tricks had he been here. On Friday last I asked the Deputy Premier whether or not, in light of the Premier's public statement that he would have cleaned it up, he had spoken to her, and whether he had told her where she went wrong, and whether he advised her how she should have conducted herself to clean up the dirty tricks. The minister's answer was that the Premier had never spoken to her. He tacitly criticized her in public, but he never revealed to her how he would have cleaned it up.

[ Page 3834 ]

Two other ministers of the executive branch — the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who now protests loudly that this matter is being vented, and the Minister of Health — both said the dirty tricks affair was mishandled. They are both quoted in the paper on numerous occasions: "Tricks Affair Mishandled." The Canadian Press report said:

"Two Social Credit cabinet ministers agreed Friday that the government has mishandled the dirty tricks affair. In separate statements, Environment minister Rafe Mair and Municipal Affairs minister 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. "

The president of the party at that time, Les Keene, indicated in very strong terms that the dirty tricks scandal had been mishandled. He's quoted in the Victoria Times on December 17, 1979, and I quote an excerpt from his reference to the affair during the period that the Minister of Human Resources was the acting Deputy Premier. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I believe once appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor she is permanently the Deputy Premier and bears some responsibility for a designation on the executive council which has been made by His Honour. I don't believe that any member of this Legislature can relieve her of that continuing obligation.

I quote a section from this report which appears in the Victoria Times:

"It would be improper to identify those who made mistakes, Keene added, because of continuing inquiries by RCMP and the Attorney-General's ministry into the affair. He called for greater accountability of party fund-raising and election spending. In reviewing the controversy, Keene said it was wrong to have civil servants, members of the Social Credit caucus research staff, interfering in party affairs, and wrong to have an executive assistant to a cabinet minister organizing a 1978 seminar for constituency presidents. It was at this seminar that caucus researcher Jack Kelly told the presidents, 'We do play dirty, and we don't really worry about that too much.' Kelly also mentioned writing letters to newspapers under aliases."

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the lowest mark, in my view, in political history in this province. We have a history of polarization, to some extent, between the democratic socialist view and that rather extreme right-wing view represented by the coalition called Social Credit. We fight very hard, and we're entitled to do that, in the way of debate. But we are not entitled to reduce the standard to falsifying letters to the editor, to putting out tapes advocating dirty tricks, to involving the executive assistant of this minister whose estimates we are discussing today, who was paid by the public treasury of this province, in recording those statements on tapes and distributing them to all Social Credit constituencies throughout the province. The minister has never answered for that. She has never told us whether George Lenko attended that seminar, recorded those messages advocating dirty tricks and then distributed them under her authority, under her guidance, and from her office. How is it that this senior minister, this Deputy Premier, allowed her political representative, George Lenko, to attend this seminar and perhaps — I don't know, but perhaps — to use public funds to record those dirty messages and to distribute them throughout the province of British Columbia?

She sits there, I guess, trying to play that old proverb of "see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil." She hopes that it will go away if she refuses to answer these questions. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that all of the people of British Columbia, as members of the cabinet themselves demanded and as representatives of the Social Credit Party demanded.... We want to reveal who is responsible for the kind of reduction in political morality in this province reflected by the whole dirty tricks affair. Further, we and all of the people, even in the Social Credit Party, I believe, want assurance that this kind of thing will not recur in the future.

The minister sits in silence. I find it difficult to believe, Mr. Chairman, that that minister, steeped as she is in politics, with her long background in politics in British Columbia, had her executive assistant attend the seminar in Vancouver and remained blissfully unaware of what was being advocated there. That's what she told us on Friday: she didn't know a thing about it.

I find it even more difficult to believe that that minister, with her intuition and her feel for politics and, indeed, with her tough-mindedness in politics, allowed her executive assistant to reproduce those tapes and distribute them throughout the province without her knowing a thing about it. I would ask: could any reasonable person believe that that is true? Could any reasonable, fair-minded person believe that that minister's understudy, her chief political representative in her office, who was paid by the public, could go off to the Social Credit seminar, record the messages advocating dirty tricks, return, complete those tapes and distribute them throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia — at whose expense, I don't know; that's never been revealed — and ask us to believe that that could have occurred without this minister's full knowledge? I don't believe it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure many of us are participating in the debate in the hope that perhaps we might somehow start to hear a little bit about the Ministry of Human Resources and the estimates therefor. I would like you again to bring the member to order. It's totally out of order.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it's altogether inappropriate for the minister or for anyone else to direct the Chair and to determine what is in order and what is out of order. The member is entitled to direct a question to the Chair, but not to direct and instruct the Chair; I suggest that that is presumptuous and wrong; it is impertinent.

Speaking to the point of order, in fairness, I believe that I have established the framework for demonstrating that my remarks are totally in order. The Premier himself denied any responsibility for the dirty tricks affair; indeed, he said he would have cleaned it up in a different way had he been here. We questioned the Premier at length, and he said: "Look, it's not my responsibility; it belongs to some other minister." What we're finding is the executive council playing musical chairs, with one minister refusing to accept accountability and deferring to another one, who also refuses to accept accountability in this Legislature. If it's the minister's intention to muzzle speakers in this Legislature, even though he himself blasted the dirty tricks affair as an inappropriate thing

[ Page 3835 ]

to occur and criticized the minister himself.... Now he tries to close off debate in this Legislature. I say it's shameful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I must intervene. The member did rise on a point of order that turned into debate, and I'm sure the hon. member recognizes that.

On the same point of order, the hon. Minister Of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't assume for a moment that I can direct the Chair; I have too much respect for the Chair. I'm sure the Chair recognizes that it was not a direction at all, only a calling to order. I would like to repeat that there are many people here, the minister's staff and others, who are here to witness the debate on the estimates. We've heard no expression at all from the opposition as to their concern for Human Resources in British Columbia. They don't care about people programs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are now entering debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members please come to order. Once again, I want to remind all hon. members that Committee of Supply is the legislative process by which we debate the administrative actions of a minister when that minister's salary vote and other votes are before the House. It has been established in this House, and it was articulated extremely well by the Chairman last Friday, that since Committee of Supply must, by virtue of the rules that we know, relate its debate to the administrative actions of the minister.... When we debate the administrative actions of the Deputy Premier, we must be able to demonstrate to all members of this House that the minister was acting specifically in the capacity as Deputy Premier. If such a proper basis has not been established, then the Chair must intervene in the interests of orderly debate. I would ask all hon. members, when they are debating the estimates of the Deputy Premier, that they relate specifically to an administrative action that the minister carried out while she was designated as Deputy Premier.

Once again I recognize the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke on vote 125, the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. KING: As far as I know, the minister's name-plate is still affixed to her door, as Deputy Premier. It has been demonstrated through criticism from her colleague, who now protests too much, and from the Minister of Health and, indeed, from the Premier that had this minister undertaken and carried out her duties more effectively the dirty tricks scandal may never have continued as an ongoing purge of the good name of political morality in this province.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all hon. members please come to order. The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has the floor on vote 125.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, to think that at introduction time today that minister got up and told this House how he loved the Irish, and now he runs out of the House. I have to question his word, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 125, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, there is a whole variety of questions that the minister has not addressed herself to. She has not satisfied the House that George Lenko, through his participation in the dirty tricks affair, was doing other than acting under her direction. She has not explained to the House whether or not he was on the public payroll at any point, either in his attendance at the seminar or in the period when he reproduced the tapes and distributed them throughout the province. There is a principle involved here: while executive assistants are political animals — usually appointed by order-in-council — at election time they normally step down and stand aside from the public payroll while they perform any political function for their ministers. It's totally inappropriate for a political representative to draw pay from the public trough while at the same time acting as a political, partisan advocate for any political party. That question has not been addressed and answered.

The other thing that bothers me is that there used to be a doctrine in the British parliamentary system which held that politicians — executive council members — bore responsibility for the conduct not only of employees of their ministry but certainly also for their political representatives and underlings to the extent, Mr. Chairman, that under the Mother of Parliaments in Great Britain, when an error was made that in any way fundamentally undermined the public trust and confidence and public propriety, it was not the underling who was fired but the cabinet ministers who had the decency and respect for the system and the tradition who stepped down, acknowledging that they themselves were the chief administrators and that any action undertaken by their employees reflected on them.

What do we find in the instant case? We find this minister still hanging in there, still doggedly refusing to be accountable to this Legislature, after her executive assistant, George Lenko, was either fired or resigned. We still don't know that. Did he fall or was he pushed? What about Glen Mitchell? He's still hanging around — no, he's not; he' s gone, isn't he? All of the caucus staff with which this minister was involved during the time she was the senior political representative, when she instructed that member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).... It's public knowledge that he accepted counsel from the Deputy Premier before canning all of the caucus research staff. So what do we find? What kind of morality is this? Aside from the advocacy of falsifying names, of playing dirty, of forging documents, we find this highly moral group over here firing all of the poor workers who, I have to believe, simply acted out the political instructions of their masters.

We find not one political representative from that side willing to accept the responsibility that should properly be theirs. We find not one political representative on that side willing to be fully accountable and candid to this Legislature. That's contempt, in my view. We find attempts by each and every minister whose estimates we discussed to say, "Well, that's not my area. You're out of order. Pass it on to someone else," only to find that when we come to another minister who has any involvement at all, the same story comes across: "Pass it on to someone else" — the double-shuffle, Mr. Chairman.

That Deputy Premier is the same person who went around

[ Page 3836 ]

this province telling all and sundry that the New Democratic Party government had a secret police force — armed.... A matter of the record....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that cannot be discussed in this committee. We do have vote 125 before us. Our rules tell us that we must stick to the administrative actions of the ministry.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member realizes the confines of debate and how debate is contained in committee of supply. The hon. member continues.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but it has always been permissible in debate to make brief reference to something which impinges on or holds relevance to the credibility or the lack of credibility of an administrative action by a minister in this House. I simply make reference to the stories that that minister told around this province, which I believe she knew to be untrue and which certainly were untrue. Now we're being asked to believe, apparently on the basis of that shaky credibility, that George Lenko acted alone, without political direction. I cannot accept that. I believe that George Lenko acted as he did, if not with the instruction of the minister, certainly with full knowledge of the minister.

MR. BARRETT: And approval.

MR. KING: And approval. I believe that the employees of the Social Credit caucus and the employees of a number of ministers, including one from the Premier's office, carried the can for the political misdeeds and immorality of that total government. This minister, in her position as senior political representative in the absence of the Premier at that time, bore the major responsibility to be candid with the public, to be open and accept responsibility for that morality — which I can only describe as unfortunate — rather than heaping it on the shoulders of employees who really had no responsibility in a public way for acting out the direction of the government.

I'm not going to say a great deal more about this, but quite frankly I don't know how that minister can live with it. I don't know how many people were fired by the Social Credit government at that time. I believe there was something like a dozen firings — something in that order; certainly eight or nine. Some of them got a "menial reprimand" from the caucus chairman. It's getting worse; one of my colleagues of the media received a manual reprimand from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) a while ago.

This government is entrenching, and in striking out at the media they are trying to stonewall parliament. They are a government beleaguered and a government under siege. Until such time as ministers such as the Deputy Premier are prepared to get up and level with the House, be candid and accept their proper responsibility for the political immorality which they were caught out in, then of course I have no confidence in this minister either as Minister of Human Resources or as Deputy Premier of the province of British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), before he left the House in a rage — and I am coming to the minister's estimates that we're dealing with now, and her responsibilities — made reference to the fact that the opposition was irresponsible in even bringing this matter before the House. He also suggested that the New Democratic Party was not concerned with people, and suggested that we get on to Human Resources estimates. I think that the record of the NDP doesn't have to have any apology when it comes to how we feel and our concern for people. I think the history of the legislation brought in by the NDP when they were government speaks for itself.

We are moving in this area right now, before moving on to Human Resources specifically, because we see no point in moving into a discussion about the substance of the minister's estimates if we have not had it made quite clear in this House that the particular minister we're dealing with is prepared to give a proper explanation, not only to the members of the opposition but to the people of B.C., on the whole matter of political ethics in her ministry. This is what this is all about.

When the minister was acting as Deputy Premier in the whole matter of the dirty tricks, she was responsible for the handling of it at that time. Throughout the period she was in charge, there was an attempt by that minister to belittle the press investigations, to belittle anyone who even suggested that the whole matter of Lettergate should be investigated. Since then it has come to our attention that many of those allegations have been proven true. Yet that minister is still the Minister of Human Resources, she is still the Deputy Premier of the province, and there is a cloud over this minister's head.

Again, may I say, how can we move on to discussing the substance of her ministry until we can be assured by her that the allegations are not true? That minister, throughout this whole discussion, maintains silence on this matter. She just works on her material and the business of her ministry. We find this rather astounding. I'm sure that if any other minister of the Crown had the allegations that have been mentioned here in reference to her work as Deputy Premier and maintained silence.... The only thing that the public can consider is that those allegations, or some of them, must be true. This minister has not taken her place to refute them.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, we have gone through a number of questions by a number of opposition speakers. I have one very specific one for the minister, to do with her former executive assistant, Mr. Lenko. What is Mr. Lenko doing now? Is he working in any capacity at all for government or for the minister?

Speaking of the minister's executive assistant, who was her assistant at the time that the whole dirty tricks affair came to light, may I say that I completely agree with what the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) pointed out earlier: that minister was ultimately responsible for the actions of her executive assistant. Her executive assistant had to resign because of the seriousness of the Lettergate affair.

MR. HOWARD: Where is he now?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, that's what we'd like to know.

Mr. Chairman, the point is that we all know that the Minister of Human Resources and the Deputy Premier is a

[ Page 3837 ]

minister who controls her staff very closely, especially her executive assistant. How can she sit there and remain silent when specific questions have been asked by the opposition on the import of the firing, resigning or whatever of Mr. Lenko? It is crucial to the administrative duties of the Minister of Human Resources.

We are here in the latter part of the summer and we are still discussing the matter of political morality in government. As far as the NDP is concerned, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more important than staying here to continue discussing and debating political ethics in government. Nothing else really matters. In-house reports on investigations by the Attorney-General's ministry do not suffice to allay the fears of the public of B.C. — the fear that they now have a government in the province which, I say unequivocally, is politically immoral.

The minister, who is the most partisan minister in government, is now sitting before us silent. The history of this minister since she took office as a government member has been very, may I say, suspicious when it comes to over-using her office for politically partisan purposes. Today we are giving this minister an opportunity to clean up these allegations that rest on her head, and she is not doing it. We are not satisfied; the people of B.C. are highly disturbed, I don't think there is anywhere one goes that one does not hear some reference to the dirty tricks and Lettergate.

At this time, the only person who can help ease the fear that we have a government in the province of British Columbia that doesn't care about political ethics is that minister. I ask her to stand up and allay those fears. There is no point in any opposition continuing to move on to any estimates in this House unless we know that the government now in power in British Columbia is a government beyond suspicion when it comes to morality in government.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it seems strange that we haven't heard anything from the Minister of Human Resources, who doubles as Deputy Premier. Certainly we would be interested in having her respond. I think she owes it to the Legislature and to the people of this province. As Deputy Premier she certainly must have had some knowledge of what was going on within the party and even within the precincts of this Legislature.

I have files and files of clippings that have been written on this subject. It is one that has been of extreme importance to the people of the province and one that the minister, who has this double responsibility, simply has to clear up. As long as this shadow of doubt hangs over her head, these questions concerning her involvement in the boundary changes that took place within this province, the letter-writing campaign that was undertaken during the last election on behalf of Social Credit candidates and so many questionable things.... Until she is prepared to stand up and tell us exactly what went on, there is no point in moving on to the other facet of her duties. We can have no assurance that we will be getting any kind of adequate response relative to Human Resources until we know that she is prepared to tell us exactly what has happened in her duties as Deputy Premier.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier whether or not she saw the report that was prepared by Jack Kelly, the former researcher with the caucus, in regard to some possible changes in the Eckardt report. Mr. Kelly advised a local reporter in the Cowichan Valley that he had made the recommendation to delete the Ladysmith and Cassidy area from the Cowichan-Malahat constituency and that he had filed that report with the Deputy Premier, the then Provincial Secretary. I wonder whether she would be prepared to tell the House if she saw that report from Mr. Kelly. If so, was that information passed on to Mr. Eckardt?

It seems very strange to me that Mr. Eckardt's report indicates that there would be no change in the boundaries of Cowichan-Malahat — except that they took a third of it away. Now that seems very strange to me when you see that following that is also the recommendation that a very small portion, the Nitinat Indian reserve, be taken in by Alberni. I would suggest that that particular clause in that verbal content of the report was in all probability inserted in the final draft, because certainly there is no explanation as to why it is there. The judge said there would be no change in the boundaries, except.... And then there's this very out-of-context addition that a third of it be taken away. I think the minister, as Deputy Premier, has to take some responsibility for those actions,

It's been a very widespread concern among British Columbians that the present government has left much to be desired in its integrity. I quote from Beale's Letter, which doesn't usually get into this kind of thing; it's usually dealing with the forest industry. This is on October 30, 1979. It reads in part:

" As I stand here thinking my thoughts, another odour wafts up my nostrils. Is it a political smell? I wonder. I don't know what it is, and I can't begin to put my finger on it. But there's something mightily unpleasant going on in Victoria, and no doubt we'll just have to wait three months, six months, a year — who knows? — before it all comes out. The business of the Socreds and their phony letters to editors, dirty tapes and so on, while I'm not trying to minimize their unsavouriness, are part of something else. They're part of something that is very wrong with the Social Credit Party."

Those are the comments of Colin Beale. I think he has indicated the feelings of British Columbians generally — that there is something very wrong with the Social Credit Party. As past president of that organization, as a very active organizer for that organization and as Deputy Premier of the province, if those things are very wrong, then that Deputy Premier has a responsibility to stand in this House and to tell the people of British Columbia just what her part was in those dirty tricks — the tapes, the letters and all the other things that have added up to create such an unsavoury aura around Social Credit in British Columbia. She has a responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to do just that.

I wonder whether or not the Deputy Premier was Acting Deputy Premier on the day that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) dealt with the researchers in caucus. How many times did she meet as Deputy Premier with that member for Omineca to give him advice and instructions on what he should or should not do relative to the firing of the caucus researchers? As long as she sits there silently and says nothing, then we in this Legislature and the people of British Columbia will remain convinced that she did issue the instructions to the member for Omineca, and that he did meet with her. Certainly the evidence is there. He was taking directions from that member for Vancouver–Little Mountain,

[ Page 3838 ]

and I would suggest that it was in her capacity as Deputy Premier — because certainly the Premier was not in the province at that time.

She has a responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to stand in this Legislature and level with us, tell us just exactly what she did, how much she was involved and whether or not she is prepared at this point in time to do the honourable thing as far as her employees are concerned. Certainly in any other facet of the business world or within parliament, an employer is responsible for the actions of his or her employees. It's just taken for granted that they must accept that responsibility. Instead, we have seen this minister hide behind the caucus chairman and hide behind her employees till they drop like flies. She has been quite willing to sacrifice loyal and dedicated employees who were doing the thing that they, I believe, had been instructed to do; she was prepared to let them drop like flies rather than to stand up and accept the responsibility that any upright employer would accept. It's a disgrace, not just to this government but to this province, that we are faced with a situation where we find the Colin Beales writing about the unsavoury smell that comes from Victoria.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take my place in the debate on the spending estimates of the Minister of Human Resources. But also I'd like to congratulate the minister for the outstanding work she has done in the past year and her accomplishments within the ministry.

I would also like to thank those people throughout British Columbia who unselfishly gave of their time last year and throughout their lives in promotion of the child and the family in the province of British Columbia.

I'd also like to congratulate those people who received awards for their dedication and support of the family in the Year of the Child. I would also like to thank the minister for coming to Cranbrook and Fernie and making those presentations personally in my constituency to people like Rick Anderson of Cranbrook, who has shown initiative and dedication, for his volunteer activities with young children in the scouting movement, and is a block parent; to people like Ethel and Bud Bolen of Jaffray, who have given ten years of their lives in support of the family and children in that community; to people like Dwight Brown, who has spent 16 years of service in the scouting movement; to people like Emma Chubra of Fernie, in recognition for her service to children as a teacher; to Evelyn and Ronald Gran of Fernie for being outstanding foster parents; to Don Isherwood for his involvement in the scouting movement for 20 years in that community; to Rick Jensen for his activities in the Big Brothers organization in the province of British Columbia; to Cyril Jolies of Cranbrook, who has given many years of dedicated service to the youth and scouting movement, and in coaching minor hockey; to Bernie Lutes for his exceptional leadership in the church and scouting movements for many years; to Joyce Metcalfe, the bandleader of the Cranbrook girls' bugle band, who has dedicated many years of service to children in the community of Cranbrook; to Karin Penner of Cranbrook, who has volunteered many, many years of her life to the service of children in the community of Cranbrook; to La Vonne Rallison, who has spent 17 years in the scouting movement and 15 years as cubmaster in the community of Cranbrook, and who is presently a district council member; to Cathy Rempel and her late husband, Peter, for being outstanding foster parents for many years in the community of Cranbrook and for their support of the severely handicapped children in that community; to Bob Sari, who has spent 13 years in the scouting movement; and to Harvey and Siri Thibeault, who live by the motto of "never too many children." Having ten children of their own, they helped to raise more than 30 foster children from toddlers to teens, in their deep commitment to the family in that community.

I would also like to thank the minister for establishing an Infant Development Program in Cranbrook in 1979. This program has provided services to many families with children who have special needs in Cranbrook, Kimberley, Ferne, Sparwood, Elkford and Invermere. This program already has 24 referrals. It is felt that there will be a much greater need. Once the program is advertised and the caseload increased beyond the 24, it is expected that there will be a need for another worker with the community development program as it expands.

I would also like to thank the minister for her help and assistance in securing funds for the Cranbrook Achievement Centre and for the Silver King Workshop in Nelson.

In 1979 the Year of the Child and the Family brought great public awareness and recognition to all those who have worked for many years and who gave a great deal of themselves in order to provide a better deal for those people who are less fortunate.

I would like, just for a moment, to point out some of the programs that may be in need over the next year in the Cranbrook area and the Kootenay constituency. There is a great need for the establishment of an Infant Development Program in Cranbrook, because of the extremely high population of single parents in that community. I know that the minister has had some correspondence with Arlene Cross on this matter. Maybe the minister could give me an update on how things are progressing with that program.

I also see the need for coordinating various government agencies in that community — government agencies that can provide help for single parents. There is also the need to establish a group home for the mentally handicapped in Fernie. I know that the minister has had some discussion with Marg Troseth and Sheri Golley of Trail with regard to the establishment of a halfway house for battered women in that community. Perhaps the minister could give an update on what progress has been made in that area.

I know that this Minister of Human Resources and this government of British Columbia are going to continue to look forward with pride from 1979 to the outstanding accomplishments and work which has begun in support of family life in British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: Since Friday the official opposition has attempted to ask questions of the Deputy Premier concerning her responsibility for the so-called dirty tricks campaign. She's been curiously silent on the subject. It's well known that this particular minister is pleased to talk at endless length about any other aspect of her performance except this one. It's well known that she went to extraordinary lengths, during the absence of the Premier, to attempt to find some rational and defensible way to explain irrational and indefensible behaviour by Social Credit workers and by Social Credit personnel during the last campaign and, presumably, for some time after that. The Deputy Premier has been extraordinarily quiet on the whole issue. One presumes it's because she thinks that if she remains quiet we may become quiet and people will forget about the way politics was dirtied by Social Credit during the last campaign in this province.

[ Page 3839 ]

The minister hopes for too much. She may offer one of her famous patented smiles, but until she starts offering entirely candid and straightforward answers, we'll not be satisfied.

The opposition would like to know why the Deputy Premier was so concerned about the well-being of Ellen McKay that she phoned on at least nine occasions to attempt to obtain her whereabouts when Ms. McKay was in Europe. This was during one of the panicky heights of the dirty tricks scandals of last fall. The official opposition would like to know whether or not it was the intention of the — as we learn — occasional Deputy Premier that she wanted to rehearse a story with Miss McKay before Miss McKay got back and was greeted by the inquiring press. We all know that the occasional Deputy Premier thought that the press were "sick" — in her words — to ask questions or to question her judgment with regard to the handling of the dirty tricks scandal. We all know her low opinion of any members of the press who would deign to ask her to produce one single fact to verify anything she says. Apparently we are supposed to take her on her word alone. I would remind the committee, as we remind the people of British Columbia regularly, that some people took her at her word in 1974 when she fabricated a story about a non-existent secret police force that had been purportedly created by the New Democratic administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair has allowed some latitude with members in this discussion, but I hardly see how a reference again to the matter in 1974 just canvassed by the member in any way relates to the administrative responsibilities of the minister or of the Deputy Premier.

MR. LAUK: Is credibility a timely thing or ongoing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. That has nothing to do with it.

MR. BARBER: We think credibility is an important issue, but I do appreciate your advice, and will, as always, restrict my comments to what she does from time to time.

It's important, though, when taking the measure of her replies — or today, as we see it, her silences — to keep in mind the history of her truthfulness. I was only briefly recalling for people the total lack of truthfulness in earlier statements about a so-called secret police force.

Now to more current times. Ellen McKay was out of the country. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was in Houston. The phone lines were burning up when the Deputy Premier was attempting to get through and to get some kind of message through as well. One wonders why she troubled to do that. Did the Deputy Premier not trust Ellen McKay to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Did the Deputy Premier have some concern about the fact that if Miss McKay did tell the whole truth about dirty tricks the Deputy Premier might be embarrassed? After all, she was already in the process of losing her executive assistant for his culpability.

They had by that time, it appears, decided to fire the entire Social Credit staff involved in the research office. They had apparently decided to sacrifice Dan Campbell. Of course, others associated with the Social Credit Party had, to their everlasting shame, already become publicly identified with forged letters, thousand-dollar bills, non-reported election expenses and all the other things that the Deputy Premier clearly knew about and did nothing about.

One wonders why she was so concerned about Miss McKay's pending arrival from Europe. Was it in order to rehearse — before the press got to Miss McKay — the answers that she might provide to them about the involvement of the Deputy Premier and others in the most senior ranks of Social Credit involved in the dirty tricks affair? One wonders what kind of moral standards, politically speaking, obtained in government ranks when headed by the Deputy Premier. When panicking and attempting to explain, in a charitable way, the import of the dirty tricks scandal, the Deputy Premier took it upon herself to phone and phone and phone again the member for Omineca, and tell him to fire the entire Socred staff before they could talk too much, and phone and phone and try to phone again Miss McKay, prior to her return from Europe. The Deputy Premier — it is alleged — also phoned and phoned again one of her cabinet colleagues in order, on behalf of Mr. Eckardt, to persuade that colleague to fire a certain respected senior public servant or two.

It is our information — yet to be denied by the Deputy Premier — that she was materially involved in transmitting to her colleague the advice of the allegedly non-partisan former Social Credit candidate Mr. Eckardt that a senior respected honourable public servant or two be fired from his position. One wonders why the Deputy Premier made it her business to attempt to interfere with the administration of the Public Service Act and with the administration of the oath of office taken by senior personnel who commit themselves to the impartial and disinterested administration of public policy as long as they hold those positions. One could review the number of Social Credit appointees who have succeeded during the regime of the Deputy Premier. One could note the rise to grace, so to speak, of John Plul. One could note the remarkable success that people like Dale Mearns have had — the non-partisan, disinterested, impartial, Social Credit campaign manager who became the office manager for the Eckardt commission. One could ask questions about a great number of Socred hacks who have been appointed to high office by the Deputy Premier, presumably on the basis of their ability to take orders. Then we have the case of Mr. Eckardt himself — a not-renowned lawyer, a not-renowned judge, who was renowned as a candidate for Social Credit, albeit a losing one, and who was appointed a short while ago to head an allegedly impartial redistribution commission.

We've asked a number of questions, which the Deputy Premier refuses to answer, concerning her involvement, if any, in the redistribution of her own riding and other ridings. We've asked the Deputy Premier to try to justify the inclusion of that notorious appendage, called Gracie's Finger, with its 76 percent Social Credit vote, adding materially to the fortunes of the first and second members for Vancouver–Little Mountain. So far, the answer has been silence. It has been silence in regard to the phone calls she made to the member for Omineca; it has been silence in regard to the reasons for Mr. Lenko's resignation; it has been silence in regard to the firing of the Social Credit research staff; it has been silence in regard to the attempts to get together with Ellen McKay before she could meet spontaneously with the press; it has been silence in regard to her meetings with Mr. Eckardt; it has been silence with regard to appointment of Dale Mearns; it has been silence with regard to every single involvement the Deputy Premier had with what has become popularly known as dirty tricks.

It is an ancient principle of the British common law that no person can be compelled to testify against himself; this perhaps explains the silence of the Deputy Premier. It is a

[ Page 3840 ]

current principle of American law, as embodied in the fifth amendment, that no person can be required to jeopardize her position in the law by testifying in her own court. This too may explain the silence of the Deputy Premier. There are a number of rational explanations for her silence. It may also be the case, at least in part, that she knows, because her cabinet colleagues have told her, that when during the absence of the Premier in Japan she was responsible for public handling of the scandal that became known as dirty tricks, she blew it; she was incompetent, inept and unable. In fact, as the result of her clearly incompetent handling of it, the Social Credit Party got into even deeper trouble than it was before the whole mess began. Those may be the reasons for her silence; those may be, at least in part, the explanations for every aspect of the coverup which the people of British Columbia heave clearly understood took place.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The official opposition is not content to simply ask the same questions again and again and have silence as the only reply. We got used to that stunt when we were in the estimates of the Premier. We did not accept it then and we do not propose to accept it now. The Deputy Premier must be held accountable for her involvement, for the involvement of her personal assistants, advisers and representatives, and for her political involvement in the whole rotten scheme and swindle called the dirty tricks affair. She could, I suppose, offer her incompetence, bungling and ineptness as an excuse; she could offer that explanation for why it was that in September, October and November things didn't get better, they got worse; she could hold out that explanation — lame as it is — to account for the fact that every time a Socred explained one dirty trick, he inadvertently opened up three more during the period. I suppose incompetence at least can always be held as a partial excuse on the part of the Deputy Premier for what she did last fall, and what she surely was involved in doing, supervising and inspiring in the months before.

When someone like George Lenko, a man utterly devoted to the Deputy Premier and utterly devoted to the principles of Social Credit — whatever they might be — has to resign and be thus sacrificed, one wonders what on earth it must have been — so grave and so much more serious than we have yet to grasp — that would have provoked it. When a man like George Lenko, who — one has to pay him some respect — is totally dedicated to Social Credit and the Deputy Premier personally, finds it necessary to resign, we can only ask how much more grave the situation really must have been to prompt his getting out of politics. Now we know that the Deputy Premier continues to be politically associated with Mr. Lenko — that's certainly her and his privilege; no problem. But one has to ask: why all those resignations from loyal people who presumably did not abandon Social Credit until Social Credit abandoned them? Social Credit abandoned them, it would appear, through the kind offices, it would appear, of the Deputy Premier, who ordered that they be fired; who ordered that they be sacrificed; who ordered that they be telephoned again and again long distance in order to rehearse their testimony before a press that they could not control.

The Deputy Premier, on the basis of ability alone, knows that she should be the Premier today. On the basis of conventional political ability, she and not the member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) is responsible for the reincarnation of Social Credit. It must be, I suppose, an especially galling thing for the Deputy Premier — occasional as she is — to see the member for South Okanagan make matters even worse upon his return, wearing Japanese bandanas and smirking silly grins at the press, and presuming that that utterly foolish behaviour would in some way account to the people of British Columbia for the involvement of his party in the swindle and the scandals called "dirty tricks."

But it is clear that the judgment of the Deputy Premier has been impaired to some extent. One wonders, for instance, about the quality of judgment involved when one thinks to get away with it politically by appointing a Socred hack and former candidate, parading as a retired judge, to a one-man commission of inquiry.

I asked, months ago, what the Socreds would have done had our side appointed Yvonne Cocke as a one-person commission of inquiry into the electoral boundaries of British Columbia. Well, of course, the Socreds would have screamed and screamed until their lungs turned blue. But, of course, we didn't do that.

However, what did the Deputy Premier do? Did she appoint Lawrie Wallace, a distinguished, impartial, disinterested public servant to be a member of an electoral commission? No. But Dave Barrett appointed Lawrie Wallace. Did she appoint a distinguished geographer from the faculty of the University of British Columbia — disinterested, impartial and unbiased — to assist and be a member of the commission? No, she did not, although Dave Barrett did. Did the Deputy Premier appoint a member of the British Columbia Supreme Court to chair this three-person commission? No, she did not, although Dave Barrett did.

We know what the standards of the New Democratic administration were in regard to this highly sensitive matter. If anyone opposite is going to suggest that Lawrie Wallace would be party to something wrong in electoral redistribution, they should apologize before the words form themselves on their tongues. The standards of our administration were high, precise and clear. We appointed people of quality, calibre and character. Who did the Deputy Premier appoint? A Socred candidate to be a one-person commission.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is against our standing orders to interrupt a member when that member is speaking. I will also remind the member that we are, once again, recanvassing legislation.

MR. BARBER: We're also attempting to canvass, as ably as this poor little opposition can do, Mr. Chairman, the administrative responsibilities of the Deputy Premier, which go back to December 22, 1975, as you know. And we're attempting to compare, just for a moment, the relative standards of political morality.

We're attempting to point out what one administration did in order to come up with a fair, impartial, disinterested and utterly unbiased electoral redistribution report: one supreme court judge, one UBC professor, and one enormously respected public servant — that was the New Democratic formula. We're attempting, further, to compare that with the Social Credit formula: a one-man commission of inquiry, accountable to no one but the Deputy Premier, meeting in the secrecy of his own imagination, who was himself a candidate for the Social Credit Party.

[ Page 3841 ]

It's an incredible thing that anyone, even this Deputy Premier, could have such rotten political judgment as to think that the government could get away, willy-nilly, with appointing a one-man, ex-Socred-candidate commissioner on electoral boundaries.

It's not as if they didn't have a good model to go by. I remind you that the model they had to follow was that of the Norris commission — the three-man commission appointed by the predecessor government. It wasn't as if they couldn't find successful precedent elsewhere — disinterested, impartial and non-partisan. They had the precedent elsewhere. The Barrett government gave it to them. But for some reason — and we ask again today what it was — this government decided to appoint a Socred candidate, admitted to be a personal friend of the Deputy Premier, to head this purportedly impartial, allegedly unbiased, supposedly disinterested commission, whose manager was one Dale Mearns, formerly a Social Credit campaign manager in the city of Vancouver.

We're asking questions about the political judgment, standards and administrative responsibilities of the Deputy Premier. And we're pointing out, for all those who care to think about these things, that the standards of political judgment were lowered profoundly when the Deputy Premier appointed Mr. Eckardt.

I have no doubt that Mr. Eckardt would have made a good Social Credit candidate. After all, by the standards of Social Credit, he may have been one of the best; we don't know. But it's not our point to argue it.

The fact is, he was a Socred candidate. Again, I ask the committee what screams we would have heard from the Socreds if we had appointed a New Democrat as a one-person head of a one-person commission of inquiry into electoral redistribution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again I must caution you that you are discussing legislation that has already been well canvassed in this House. It' s a vote that has been passed which you are reflecting on. Further, you are discussing something that would be appropriate under the estimates of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who is responsible for the Election Act. Our records will show that we have in fact dispensed with the estimates of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BARBER: What we understand is something about political morality, and we would never ever dare appoint an active New Democrat to chair such a commission. Why did you have the nerve to think you could appoint an active Socred to the same? Don't be ridiculous. We understand something about political standards in this province and we object to yours, because we know what they are.

We are not content with the self-serving silences of the Deputy Premier. We are not content with her stubborn refusal to answer responsible questions about her involvement in dirty tricks, her instructions to George Lenko, Dan Campbell, Ellen McKay and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and her instructions to the Premier in regard to the whole sordid mess that has come to symbolize the Socred standards of political morality in this province. We're not satisfied with the silence, nor, we suspect, are the people of British Columbia. Why did George Lenko resign? He was, after all, the personal representative of the Deputy Premier.

He was a man, who, in his time, had very considerable political clout, because he acted on behalf of the second or first most powerful member of the coalition cabinet, the Deputy Premier.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Well, certainly the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain is far more personally responsible for the success of Social Credit in 1975 than the member for South Okanagan ever was. At least on this side of the House we believe in giving credit where it's due.

We want to know why she took it upon herself to attempt, attempt and attempt again to contact Ellen McKay. What charitable instincts were revealed? What social work compassion was demonstrated? What problems did Ellen McKay have with her tickets? What was the reason the Deputy Premier went to such extreme lengths to obtain in private consultation the opinion of Miss McKay? Is Miss McKay a fellow social worker? Were they concerned about a third party? Maybe or maybe not, but it's a curious thing. However, I would point out that when the press inquired she attacked them for being sick. She thought they had no right to ask such questions.

The Deputy Premier is personally responsible in a very significant way for the current utter unpopularity of Social Credit. She is responsible in a very significant way for the attempt last fall — still continuing — to refuse to explain in an utterly candid way what the dirty tricks scandal was all about and whether or not it led, as some suspect, to the highest offices in the province. The Deputy Premier has never answered the questions about whether or not she instructed Mr. Campbell to hand out the thousand-dollar bills and not ask for or require receipts. After all, the Deputy Premier was the senior representative on the campaign committee of the day, which included Mr. Campbell, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Lenko, Mr. Tozer. Mr. Brown, Mr. Adam, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Craig and herself. After all, she was the only elected member of that committee and presumably was not uninformed about what Mr. Campbell was up to. She has never answered questions of that order as well. We can only presume that the reason for her silence is because she would rather be criticized for that than be held accountable for honest answers.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I think probably what we're examining this afternoon in a very fundamental way is the integrity of a member of government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that does almost cause the Chair to question statements, when in fact any hon. member's integrity is questioned. Committee of Supply allows us great opportunity to debate administrative actions, and I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that.

MR. HOWARD: In order to examine what you identify as administrative actions, we need to examine them in the light of a level of integrity and political morality that we expect from our political leaders. That's what we need to do. This is not just a simple examination in isolation of a particular point of time and particular set of estimates, although we are considering estimates for this particular year. I know, from having read the rules — although I don't have

[ Page 3842 ]

Beauchesne with me at the moment — that I cannot say that the Deputy Premier is a liar. I cannot say that in the past she has in fact told lies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not very courteous debate. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when, in debate, a member is canvassing the opinions and the conduct of his opponents. I am sure the member is aware of that.

MR. HOWARD: True enough, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Author?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Erskine May, since you asked.

MR. HOWARD: I am very seriously constrained to examine some of the things that have been said in the past that were not in the least connected with the truth of the situation. By no stretch of the imagination could they be concluded to be anything other than fabrications. When one examines why those fabrications took place, they take on an even more sinister complexion.

We have discussed in this House the fabricated secret army that the Deputy Premier has talked about in years past, the fabrication that weapons were being accumulated by the New Democratic Party, the fabrication that — I think she said — 500,000 rounds of ammunition were being amassed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have also discussed in this committee the fact that that debate cannot be allowed during these estimates. We are debating the administrative actions of the Minister of Human Resources and Deputy Premier. Clearly, we must contain ourselves to those administrative actions. We are in Committee of Supply.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, these matters were canvassed in earlier estimates involving this minister — in 1976, '77, '78 and '79. The fabrication and the untruth of what she said was brought to her attention and we asked her to clarify it on the floor of the House, because no cabinet minister responsible to any parliament in the Commonwealth can sit as a cabinet minister until she clears her name. She has not done so. My point of order is that it is still gravamen to these estimates, until she stands and clears her name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that really is not a point of order. I further will remind you that standing order 43 does caution us against continuous repetition of debate. I am sure the hon. member is aware of that.

MR. HOWARD: Let me read to the committee a quotation attributed to a person who, I think, today claims to be Deputy Premier. We're not sure at any given moment whether she is or not; we'll assume that she is today, because the sign is still on her door. This is to the Vancouver Board of Trade: "Why is it there needs to be half a million rounds of ammunition already purchased, high-powered cars and high-powered, police-calibre pistols?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Once again I remind hon. members that Committee of Supply does insist that we contain our debate to the administrative actions of the ministry whose vote is now before us. The Chair must intervene, because I haven't heard anything from the member that would indicate to me that we are discussing the ministry whose vote is now before us.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what I am doing. I need to relate my remarks which will follow to these particular quotations. They need to be placed there in order to then examine the estimates of this ministry.

Let me read another quotation from the same person. "I have always gone on the assumption that when someone purrs like a cat, acts like a cat and meows like a cat, you almost have to accept the fact that he is a cat." Let me paraphrase that and say that, for my part, I have always gone on the assumption that when one smiles and shows teeth like a rat, smells like a rat and squeaks like a rat, you almost have to accept the fact that he is a rat.

The fabrication to which I have just made reference took place a few years ago for no other purpose than to assist in the elevation of Social Credit to the government of this province; that fabrication took place to assist them in getting into office. Those falsehoods were told about a government of the day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you must relate that to the....

MR. HOWARD: I am relating that to where we are.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order concerning the relevancy of this matter in debate, if the Deputy Premier was telling the truth....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: Hear me out, Mr. Chairman. If the Deputy Premier was telling the truth and there was a secret police force and there were high-powered rifles and cars and 500,000 rounds of ammunition — and we have to presume that she was telling the truth and as well are forced to observe that the government has yet to publicly auction off the rifles and guns and cars — we can only presume that they still have the secret army operating today. I can only presume further that the Deputy Premier herself today manages the Social Credit secret police force. It is on that basis that we inquire as to her conduct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are becoming quite irrelevant. I'm sure that....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all hon. members please come to order. The Chair must insist that we maintain relevancy in debate when we're in Committee of Supply, that we must debate the estimates and the administrative actions of the minister whose ministry is before us, and that we must contain our debate to the administrative actions of that ministry. Hon. member, we cannot allow discourteous language. We cannot allow debate that imputes falsehood on the part of an hon. member, and we cannot allow debate that is irrelevant. All members are quite aware of that. They're aware of the citations that are contained in

[ Page 3843 ]

Sir Erskine May and in our Standing Orders. With that said once again, the hon. member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the point, under a point of order raised by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), was precisely the point I was going to get to after laying that foundation that I started with earlier.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: Unless and until — and this has been going on for some time — we get some indication from the Deputy Premier that yes, there was a secret army, yes, there was ammunition, even though when reporters asked her about it afterwards, she back-pedalled and said that oh, she didn't know for sure.... Until she says, "Yes, that's true," or, "No, that isn't true," we are entitled to assume that in her mind and in the Deputy Premier's mind and consequently in the mind of the forces of Social Credit, which she represents, any means to an end is satisfactory. We're talking about integrity. Once having found her out as having stretched the truth — and that's parliamentary — to suit a particular political goal, namely power in this province, one is entitled to question additional statements since that time made by that same member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the hon. member could please relate it to the administrative actions of the minister, when the minister was sitting — and the member is aware of that — then the Chair will be more than happy to allow the member to continue within the scope of the debate that's before us and what Committee of Supply is called for.

MR. HOWARD: It may be that the refinements of my argument have not yet come clearly through to the Chair, but they are there and this is what we are talking about.

We need to wonder about truth in this chamber, yes. We all desire for that to prevail. We all desire for the honest, open truthful statement to be made representing the truthful opinions, especially of members of the cabinet. But as I said earlier, once found out to be on the border between truth and non-truth, it becomes difficult to believe subsequent declarations, especially when the actions surrounding those declarations are also oriented towards getting into office and obtaining power.

Enter the Eckardt commission. That has been examined in terms of its appointment, its construction and the like. It has been stated that, if nothing else — and this is the most generous thought one could express with respect to it — at the meeting the Deputy Premier had with Judge or Commissioner Eckardt in the Laurel Point Inn on that fateful day when the commission was preparing the final touches to the report about redistribution, the very fact that the Deputy Premier saw fit to go up — I assume in the elevator or the stairs or whatever it was — to the commissioner's room, for whatever purpose, was a tremendous impropriety. That's the most generous construction, Mr. Chairman, that one can place upon that.

She didn't need to go up to the room to make an adjustment to the maps. Judge Eckardt was her friend; they're buddies. He's a Socred. All that was required was perhaps a phone call saying: "Larry, old boy, I'm in trouble in Little Mountain. Evan and me, we want a little help. How about stretching the boundaries out into Point Grey, and grabbing that 76 percent Socred vote that's there and putting it in Little Mountain, and we're saved." Look at the map. I brought it in from the statement of votes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a couple of points, hon. member: first, we cannot allow discussion on legislation that has already been before the House. We are in Committee of Supply. Your are clearly reflecting upon past legislation. Secondly, the Chair must intervene on the imputation of false or unavowed motives. I would caution the member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, have a look at the map here: it shows it. Look at that part that reaches out into Point Grey. No self-respecting geographer would do that; you had to be a political figure to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I also remind the hon. member that we have in fact discussed the estimates of the Provincial Secretary, who is responsible for the Election Act. Those estimates have been dispensed with. We are now on vote 125, the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources and Deputy Premier. The Chair cannot allow debate with respect to the Election Act, because that vote is not before us.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I am not discussing the Election Act. It has nothing whatever to do with this. The other day the Deputy Premier stood up in this House — look in Hansard, if you like, Mr. Chairman; somebody can find it for you if you want the exact quotation — and said that she would be pleased and happy and would just love to answer any questions in committee about her role when she was Provincial Secretary. That's what I'm talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might point out that the Chair intervened after that statement; I think the Journals will also show that.

MR. HOWARD: The Chair intervened because the Deputy Premier found herself getting in over her head in hot water, that's why.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this House I find it very offensive to have a remark made that the Chair was influenced by the Deputy Premier and intervened on her behalf. I find that very offensive, and I ask the member to withdraw that statement.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I didn't comment when the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) was out of his seat, sitting in the seat of the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), interjecting in this debate and making disgraceful statements, which to any member in the gallery who may be looking at the directory.... He was making interjections from over here as if he were a member of the NDP or something, totally misleading people and in contravention of every principle in this House and in parliament. I'm surprised that that member can get up in this House and call for order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First, I would like to deal with the

[ Page 3844 ]

issue the Minister of Agriculture raised, that the Chair was influenced. That is not correct; the Chair simply indicated, as it has on many occasions, what debate in Committee of Supply must contain. Any inference that the Chair was influenced is unparliamentary. I will ask the hon. member, as a courtesy to the House, to withdraw that remark.

MR. HOWARD: There was no desire on my part, deliberately or accidentally, to impute anything of that nature to the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, hon. member, on a second point of order, to the member for Nelson-Creston and also to the Minister of Agriculture, members know that they must attend the House; members also know that when they are speaking they must rise in their place. It is a custom of this House for members to sit here and there; the Chair is well aware of that. I think the point is well made by the member for Nelson-Creston that members should remain in their places. That greatly assists the Chair; it greatly assists the parliamentary process. With that said, the point of order made by the member for Nelson-Creston is well taken, and all members are so advised.

MR. HOWARD: Just so that the Minister of Agriculture, as obtuse as he is about these matters, will appreciate what's happening....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That must be withdrawn, hon. member. I find that remark unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: I'll withdraw "obtuse." How about "angular"?

On Thursday August 7, 1980 — I quote from Hansard, just so that the Minister of Agriculture, who raised a point of order, will understand — the words of the hon. Mrs. McCarthy were:

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased you've made that statement. I'd like to make one too, in response to yours and also in response to the hon. member for Prince Rupert. I have no difficulty in responding to any questions that might be asked of me about my responsibilities as Provincial Secretary in this government during the years that I was Provincial Secretary and carried the responsibility for bringing an electoral reform and redistribution report to this House. I have no hesitation in responding to questions in terms of the debate that went on during that time.

What happened, as I said, was that when questions were being posed to the Deputy Premier subsequent to that the objection arose and the Chair had no choice but to examine the rules. That is not interference by the Chair. That's interference by the government, knowing full well what the rules are. That's an attempt to have it both ways. That sweet-talking Deputy Premier is able to say "I'd love to answer any questions," and when the going gets rough she pulls out the rule book and hides behind it. It's not a coverup; it's a concealment or a blanketing.

I say this. That commission on redistribution that the Deputy Premier is so proud of, and was so proud of, resulted in gerrymandering. It resulted in two constituencies held by NDP members being completely wiped out of existence. There were three members there; one was the two-member riding of Burrard and the other was the single-member riding of Revelstoke-Slocan. They've wiped those out completely, with no justification. Then — let me show you this thing here again, Mr. Chairman, so you can see it — there is the finger, or whatever it is, reaching out and pulling into Vancouver–Little Mountain voters who would normally be in Vancouver–Point Grey, and guaranteeing thereby the election of the Deputy Premier and then Provincial Secretary. The redistribution of which she is so proud was an adjustment and juggling of the political process to ensure that they got back into office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will once again caution you that you are discussing past legislation, and the hon. member is well aware of that.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, for anybody who would be responsible for that kind of headline in the Vancouver Province of Saturday, November 9, 1974, and those statements about a secret army and the amassing of ammunition and high-powered cars, etc., gerrymandering is minor league activity. For someone who would talk about a secret army — a false accusation — using that in the hopes of driving fear into the hearts of the people in British Columbia so they would elect that crowd over there — phony letters and the advocacy of phony letters in the Bayshore Hotel conference — that was nothing; that came easy. Anybody who would talk about — fabricating in her own imagination — this secret army would think nothing of secret bank accounts; she'd look upon them as the order of the day. Thousand-dollar bills flitting around in Dan Campbell's hands — no receipts, no questions asked. What's that compared to the accusation of a secret army?

It all points up one thing. Politics in this province, for a long period of time.... Politics in the political democracy we have, that we've inherited as the British parliamentary system of which we are all proud, is basically a competition of ideas, a competition of philosophies, a competition of promises, if you will, at election time, saying I can do this better than that person, and so on — competition with respect to concepts. The idea is that political parties competing for government lay their ideals out before the general public in the hopes that their ideals and philosophies will be accepted. On that pure foundation the general public will go to the polls and vote to elect a government. Social Credit has felt terribly insecure in this matter. The minister, the Deputy Premier, is terribly insecure in that area of free, open, competitive philosophies.

If they didn't feel insecure, why did they have to resort to all the underhanded techniques that they resorted to in order to get elected? Politics in this province, as a result of Social Credit and as a result of the Deputy Premier's involvement in it — although she is not the only one — has been sullied, dirtied and dragged to a level that is almost beyond repair. I hope it isn't.

We've listened to some declarations this afternoon. Some questions have been asked about the activities of the Deputy Premier in her function as Deputy Premier — whether part-time or full-time, it doesn't matter. On no occasion this afternoon has she bestirred herself to rise and deal with any of those matters. Therefore it seems pointless to proceed any further. The blanketing of truth and justice on the part of the Deputy Premier and the cabinet seems to be secured. They seem not to want to deal with anything and bring it out from under the cloak. They want to keep it under cover. What's the point of proceeding further to examine subject matters of that nature?

While I would think a dollar is about all she's worth, I

[ Page 3845 ]

have to do it the other way around. I would move that vote 125, Mr. Chairman, be reduced by the sum of one dollar, in that way indicating our displeasure with the manner in which politics has been harmed and injured by this government and this Deputy Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment, the second member for Vancouver South.

MR. HYNDMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my understanding is, subject to your interpretation, of course — that the motion just moved is traditionally interpreted as one of no confidence in the minister. That being so, I would refer the Chair to the amendment to the throne speech debate, which specifically reposed no confidence in Her Majesty's advisers — plural. This has been debated and voted upon. I wonder, therefore, if the Chair would consider that this amendment violates the rule that twice in one session a matter may not be debated or voted upon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a very interesting point of order. The Chair will take it under advisement.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is that vote 125 be reduced by the sum of $1.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS 28

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, with your permission we'd like to deal with the other responsibility of this ministry.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the government members will cheer me as loudly when I sit down as they have cheered me when I stood up. I recognize, of course, that they're just expressing their relief, because they believe in fact that she has been a better Minister of Human Resources than she was a Deputy Premier, and in that they're quite wrong, of course.

Mr. Chairman, it's significant that this is the first minister and the only minister to date in this session for whom the opposition has raised a motion of non-confidence; I think that certainly tells you something about the regard which this opposition has for the way in which that minister has been discharging her responsibilities as Deputy Premier. And the debate surrounding her discharge of her responsibility as Deputy Premier is very relevant to the debate which is about to take place about the way in which she's discharging her responsibility as Minister of Human Resources because, in fact, we find exactly the same thing happening in Human Resources as happens under her jurisdiction as Deputy Premier. The minister makes statements; people believe the statements which the minister makes and then, to their amazement. Mr. Chairman, find that there is a discrepancy between the promises made by that minister and, in fact, what is delivered.

I want to point to one specific item to start with, and that is the promise to pass on to senior citizens in this province the $35-a-month increase which the federal Liberals, when they were running for election, promised to the senior citizens — that if they voted for them, they would give them an increase of $35 a month in their old-age pension. A commitment was made by the Premier of this province, seconded by the Minister of Human Resources, that this $35 would be passed on untouched — that, in fact, senior citizens would benefit and their income would increase by that $35 per month. Yet we find that the income-testing programs of the government were not adjusted to do just that. If one looks at the program of B.C. Housing Management, where a large number of the senior citizens live because the housing is less expensive there, when the decision about 25 percent of their rent is being calculated, the income as calculated on which to make the decision includes the $35 a month, which they were promised by this minister and her Premier would not be touched by that government. That, Mr. Chairman, is another Socred dirty trick as far as the senior citizens of this province are concerned.

If one looks at the SAFER program, again we find promises being made, and if any senior citizen in this province thinks that that $35 a month which was promised by the provincial government is not to be touched, if any senior citizen thinks that the government is keeping that promise, that senior citizen is misinformed; that senior citizen does not know the truth, because the government has reneged on this promise as the government has reneged on others.

Another promise made by that minister, Mr. Chairman, was to the families on welfare in this province that when the federal government decided to make changes in the family allowance cheques, and the federal government decided that rather than every parent of children across this country getting exactly the same amount there was going to be a re-adjustment, lump-sum payments were going to be paid to those families in need. A commitment was made by that government, the Premier of this province and the Minister of Human Resources that that lump-sum payment was not going to be touched — that in fact those families in need who received that money at the beginning of the year.... It would be theirs. Yet we're finding that two things happened at the same time. Immediately that the federal program went into place, the special needs program of the provincial government was wiped out. Now what families are told when

[ Page 3846 ]

they need a special something extra for their children — whether it's boots, a coat, a mattress or something extra that they need.... Formerly they would be able to go to their social worker and say: "I have an extra need for my child." They were allowed up to a maximum of $500 a year. Mr. Chairman, they are now being told: "Use your family allowance benefit for that. Use that lump sum which you are getting from the federal government." Again this is another instance of this minister behaving in Human Resources exactly the way she does as Deputy Premier — making statements which are not followed through on.

You would believe, Mr. Chairman, that a person like the Minister of Human Resources, who spends $2 out of the taxpayers' resources to recover every $1 in so-called fraud, was someone who was totally committed to integrity, ethics and honesty, wouldn't you? You would believe that that minister would want to see justice done at every turn, but that, of course, is not the case. When questions are raised in terms of statements made by her which we need to have clarified or denied, that doesn't happen. Yet we find that this minister has 29 workers under her jurisdiction supposedly checking that there is no dishonesty on behalf of welfare recipients, that $2 of the taxpayers' money is being spent to recover every $1, and that interoffice memos dealing with the honesty of so-called income assistance people are going from one end of her department to another.

I want to specifically refer to a memo from a Mr. Johnson, a coordinator, which was sent to Mr. Sam Travers, one of the minister's executive directors, dealing with leakages in the income assistance program. It starts out by saying that one should not assume that welfare recipients are honest. It says: "We must recognize the fact that applicants are not always honest and that the system is easy to beat." It says that some of the social workers are trying too hard to prove the client's eligibility instead of placing the onus on them.

Then it goes on to spell out steps which must be taken in dealing with income assistance — that they should be visited without appointments. That way it would be possible to catch any income assistance recipients who are involved in common-law relationships which have not been declared. There's a recommendation that women in receipt of income assistance should not be permitted to have boarders, because in fact these boarders are not boarders at all, and they may be something else. It talks about how income assistance recipients should be treated if they lose their cheques. It goes on to say that they should be treated the way everyone else is. If they lose their cheques, it's too bad, and they should not be reimbursed — that money should not be refunded to them — totally without taking into account what it means to a person in receipt of income assistance to lose the one cheque per month which they receive from the government, inadequate as it is.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It talks about security deposits when these people rent accommodation. Most of them have serious difficulty in terms of getting rental accommodation. Most of the landlords, because housing is so scarce, do not want to rent to income assistance people. Yet they are told that the department will put down the deposits and, if there's any damage, the income assistance person is responsible for that. That's the kind of recommendation going from one member to another in that minister's department.

It's a preoccupation with fraud. As we heard earlier, the minister herself spends a great deal of her time talking about secret police and other things which do not exist.

I want to respond very quickly to some of the statements raised by the minister in introducing her estimates. Mr. Chairman, first of all, she had the gall to refer to the International Year of the Child and brag about the fact that this was the only place on earth that had chosen the name specified by the United Nations from the International Year of the Child to the International Year of the Child and the Family. Well, we heard the minister's opinion of it. She thought that her department did a marvellous job. Let's hear what some other people think about it.

The Columbian newspaper of January 2, 1980, says: "The year began with a cry and ended with a whimper." That's what that newspaper made of last year's International Year of the Child. "The Year of the Child meant little to B.C.'s poor children." "More children's aid suggested." The Victoria Times: "The Year of the Child efforts fragmented." The Vancouver Sun: "The Year of the Child was a nickels and dimes year."

In the report that came out of an interministerial committee of the Capital Regional District, some health officers talked about the fact that the Year of the Child did not address itself to special children with special needs, and the kinds of services that special children with special needs need that they had hoped would have been dealt with during that year.

The same year we have Dr. Tonkin and his report on the International Year of the Child. He talks about the fact that not only are the children of British Columbia.... We still have an unacceptably high level of low birth rate, disease and illness, but he talks about increasing teenage pregnancies, increasing use of abortion by teenagers, and the evolution and escalation of violence against children. These are the kinds of ways in which other people saw the International Year of the Child.

The minister talks about the International Year of the Child as paying tribute. Of course she paid tribute. A great deal of money was spent during the International Year of the Child. Money was spent on badges, buttons and songbooks, but services to children and the real needs of children were not taken into account. We still find that the children of British Columbia have not benefited one iota from the fact that an entire year was dedicated to serving them.

The minister talks about the whole issue of child abuse. She is to be congratulated on the Helpline. There is no question about it. We keep asking what happens to the information. What happens to the information on child abuse which is fed into that office after an investigation is done and it is found that there is, in fact, no basis for the accusation? We would still like to have an answer as to what happens to that information. Does it sit in the computer? Is it destroyed? What happens to it? Can it fall into anyone else's hands? That's what we'd like to know about that.

Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about the problem of the sexual abuse of children on Davie Street. She chose to refer to it as prostitution. I do not accept that what is happening on Davie Street is prostitution. In fact, what is happening on Davie Street is the sexual abuse of children. Adult males are abusing male children as well as female children. When we use the word prostitution we lose sight of the fact that we are speaking of victims. We are speaking of the child as victim. As long as we lose sight of the fact that the child is the victim, we can sit around and say: "What we need is some

[ Page 3847 ]

federal laws changed, some provincial laws changed and some other kinds of laws changed. Society has to do something about it; there's nothing we can do." We mustn't lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with children and that children are being victimized on Davie Street by adult males. And any kind....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I've never heard of an adult female victimizing any of the children on Davie Street, but if there are any they should be dealt with too.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I have never heard of such an instance. If the Attorney-General says that there are women on Davie Street who are exploiting male children then, of course, they should be dealt with too. Certainly there has never been any report to my understanding of that. But there have been a number of reports of adult males victimizing female children as well as male children. The responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources is not to get entangled with the law of the land but to deal with those children as victims and to try to get them some alternate life — to get them off Davie Street and into some other form of life.

For one thing, there are no trained personnel in the area of adolescents now working with those children. Sure, there are social workers there. But are they social workers trained in working with adolescents? There are no resources for working with those children on the streets. What we need in that area is the building of some resources to deal with adolescent children. There are resources for dealing with small children. There are resources for dealing with adults. But there is an absolute dearth of resources for dealing with adolescents in our province. The ministry should be addressing itself to that fact.

Mr. Chairman, this is another instance where the ministry should be working very closely with other ministries. It should be working very closely with the Ministry of Health because of the incredible increase in cervical cancer among those young children on the streets, and because of the increase in abortions as well among those young children on the streets. The minister should be working with the Ministry of Education. There have to be alternative types of educational facilities. These children do not fit into the traditional institutions. They don't fit into traditional schools. There isn't any point in picking them up off Davie Street and putting them into traditional schools. They don't fit into them. The ministry should be addressing itself to working with the Ministry of Education in terms of developing alternative types of educational facilities that address themselves to job training and skill training and day programs for these children.

The ministry should be helping these children to deal with the hostility in the communities. They don't, for example, fit into your traditional kind of foster home. They don't fit into the community. There's a lot of anger and hostility directed toward these children. The ministry should be addressing itself to that. Let the Attorney-General deal with the Minister of Justice and try to straighten out the law in terms of the adult males who are abusing these children. But the minister should focus on the children as victims and should never lose sight of that. Prostitution takes place between consenting adults. We're not talking about consenting adults here now. We are talking about children and we are talking about the adults that exploit and, in many instances, abuse these children.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of pilot projects, one by TRACY, that have been in the works. These kinds of projects need more funding. The minister got a report from her director and she said it was patchwork. Of course it's patchwork. It's not going to be solved in one year. It might not even be solved in one generation, but the patchwork things have to be put into place while other things are happening. The solution cannot be adult-oriented, Mr. Chairman. They have to be non-moralistic services. There isn't any point of going and preaching to those kids and trying to tell them the difference between what is wrong and what is right. We have to develop alternative structures for them. Most of those children come into that community with a history of abuse. They are children who were — for the most part — sexually and physically abused even before they got onto Davie Street. We have to address that fact. We're talking about kids who in many instances have been victims from birth.

The solution of returning the children to their families, of course, doesn't make sense if they are coming from abusing families. The solution of even returning them to their own community may not necessarily make sense. What we need, of course, is special training for the social workers who work in that area. We need special kinds of social workers with special training. We need more day care for those kinds of children. We need child-abuse teams working with those children; more and more resources, in terms of housing, for them; health-care facilities for them; education for them; job training — those kinds of things that the minister likes to talk about as being simply band-aids.

The problem I'm having is that the minister hasn't been answering any questions. I was wondering if she was going to respond to any questions, because we haven't heard a word from her all day.

Interjections,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, maybe you should tell the visiting Attorney-General, who is in the House for the first time today, that a number of people have posed questions to the minister and the minister has not responded to any of them.

Mr. Chairman, those were my recommendations, in terms of dealing with the very special problem of sexual abuse on Davie Street, and certainly in terms of wherever it takes place, not just on Davie Street. The minister should not just dismiss the recommendation of her coordinator as being a band-aid, but she should continue to put into place some of the basic resources which are necessary.

The question of the increase in teenage pregnancies is one that I want to touch on very quickly. I know the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) suggested that certainly some kind of counselling should be done in the schools, which was rejected by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). As I pointed out in speaking on the estimates of the Minister of Health, most of these children eventually end up as wards — we don't use that term anymore — but certainly under the

[ Page 3848 ]

auspices of the Ministry of Human Resources. Maybe the Minister of Human Resources should become more actively involved in terms of trying to get the Minister of Education to see counselling as an alternative.

Teenage pregnancy is certainly one of the things that should be dealt with preventively rather than after; it's not good enough either in terms of the kids dropping out of school or resorting to abortion. What we want to do is prevent it. As that ministry, in the long run, ends up being responsible for most of the victims of teenage pregnancy, I think the minister should become more actively involved in this debate. Certainly she should encourage the Minister of Education to deal with it in the school curriculum itself.

The minister didn't say very much in her opening remarks about the foster care program. I want to make a couple of comments about it. There is some alarm among some segments of the fostering community that what they have essentially always seen as their contribution to quality of life on behalf of children is now being turned into a business. They are very unhappy with the contracts which the ministry is now presenting to them. They do not see fostering as a business. They've never made any money from being foster parents and they've never run it as though it were a business, so they are very unhappy with the ministry's decision to turn it into a business and to see them as independent entrepreneurs dealing in children. Of course, what happens is that there are other things that go with it. The ministry is getting out from under a lot of the responsibility that goes with fostering and turning it over to the foster parents. They are also not happy, of course, about the fact that they are now going to be called upon to give accounting of money any time of the day or afternoon or whenever it is that the social worker decides to check in on them. They have no realistic way of being able to keep tabs of every cent they spend, which is what the ministry is asking them for.

In addition, of course, they have always paid for extra things like school trips, special equipment and things like that for the children. What they're going to have to do is make an estimate the year before of what it's going to cost. Of course, in negotiating their contract the following year, they have to try to estimate what inflation, higher costs and everything else is going to be. Once they've signed the contract, that's it; they can't keep going back to the department for additional needs. Of course, with growing children there are always additional needs. So they're not happy about that. They say that, in any event, there is no consistency on the part of social workers, in terms of interpreting this policy and in relating it.

I was really interested that the minister did not mention anywhere in her opening remarks anything about Indian children. She was present at a three- or four-day workshop sponsored by the Indian Homemakers Association, at which I also was present. She seemed to have heard — I hope — a number of issues raised by those women about the rate at which Indian children were being apprehended by the department, the rate at which they were being placed in non-Indian homes, the lack of consultation, etc.

Of course, we're not permitted to reflect on legislation which is before the House, so I cannot say I am pleased that in the new bill the minister introduced, at least the chiefs are going to be told after the children have been apprehended and before they enter the courts.

There were a number of other important issues raised at that conference. One of the issues was the business of subsidization for any member of the extended family who wanted to foster that child. Rather than removing the child from the extended family and placing it with a stranger — in a non-Indian home, in many instances — and paying the fostering rate to someone else, the grandparents, aunts and other members of the extended family were requesting that the children be placed with them, and that the fostering be paid to them.

At the time, the minister indicated that that was not policy. But it certainly is a recommendation that is worth listening to, because whether one is dealing with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs or the Indian homemakers, in resolution after resolution at their conventions they state that only as a last resort would they ever want to see their children placed outside of the extended family or in a non-Indian home, and so they are requesting....

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for me to do the job I'm doing when the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) keeps interfering and telling me to hurry up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken.

MS. BROWN: He was the worst Minister of Human Resources this world has ever seen and we finally got rid of him. Now he's still interfering with the way in which this department discharges its responsibility. He's not interested in what I'm saying about Indian children, but I'm going to pursue it anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, and I will ask all hon. members.... The Chair really has to intervene when one member interrupts another member.

MS. BROWN: Another thing, of course, is that what the Indian community would really like to do is to be totally responsible for the care of their own children. The whole idea of asking for input into Human Resources is a compromise situation; that is not what they want at all. The major recommendation that came out of that conference at which the minister was present was that there be funds, on a federal-provincial share basis if that's necessary.... But certainly, in terms of fostering and adoption, they should be subsidized so that it will be possible for these children to remain within their extended family and not be placed in non-Indian homes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all I would just like to respond to some of the things, and particularly the last point regarding the native Indian children in the province. The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds brings to the fore the point that the native Indian families would like to take care of those children who come into care because of the problems that they have had in their own natural home. The problem is one which our ministry struggles with. I'm sure the hon. member from Burnaby well knows that we do not have sufficient native Indian homes to take those native Indian children into care.

MS. BROWN: That's not true. Why do you keep saying that?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The hon. member tries to say that that isn't true. But I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that my ministry's experience in this regard would be taken as one

[ Page 3849 ]

that is rather reliable. We have some very good and dedicated people working out there in the field. They work right with the Indian bands. They work right in the communities. They work with families. They do their best in every instance where there is a native Indian child taken into care. We do our best to find a native Indian home, relative or whoever will take care of that child.

It is a sad commentary that there aren't sufficient homes. But we have appealed to the native Indian community. I am quite confident that through the Indian Homemakers Association — which I was pleased to address, and whose desires and aspirations for their children I was pleased to hear — with their concern and cooperation we can find suitable homes for these children who come into care.

Some 4,000 children were taken into care last year. I haven't got the exact figures, but when I checked on it last year something in the order of 30 to 35 percent were native Indian children. So it's a very great problem, and a very real one.

I thank the member for the concern that she shows. It is shared by our ministry, and our ministry is certainly working on it.

I do not agree that the rate of apprehension and the rate of placement in non-Indian homes is accelerated by our ministry. The rate of apprehension and the rate of placement is according to the numbers of children in need — whether they be in native Indian homes or non-Indian homes.

In regard to the contract for foster care, let me just say to you that the federation has indicated their approval of the special-needs contract. It's not to pay tribute to a "business." It is to pay tribute to the fact that there has to be accountability for public funds in all areas. As you know, these are special placements. I don't know if you do know, but let me just say to you that it isn't for every single foster care situation in the province. As you know, we have hundreds of foster care placements. It is for those special needs where there is a special amount of money paid — and those are larger amounts of money — and the accountability for that is very necessary. In some cases there is a full-time person — full-time, around-the-clock care is needed — and the ministry pays an amount of money that pays tribute to that fact. I have looked at the contract and I don't find that it's offensive. I find that accountability of public funds must be made for all areas of our ministry as well as all areas of government, and I think the taxpayers of the province would appreciate that too.

As I say that, I want to say that I think that the people who take on the special-needs children — taking them out of institutions and putting them into a natural home surrounding with a loving family to look after them, and usually other children who embrace that child — are very special people indeed. So I want to just say to you that I think our association with the foster care federation has always been one in which we talk things over with them. We certainly have done that in a meaningful way in this past 18 months and I think that the association we have with them is an excellent one.

Please let me just address the Davie Street situation. I think it's very interesting that the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) suggests that I should not have made any comment at all in terms of what legislation was needed to try to get rid of the juvenile prostitution, or what she calls the exploitation of children — and I would agree with both descriptions — on Davie Street. Frankly, I thought it was rather interesting that there were two ministries — the interministerial approach — and that's been very evident since we have addressed the problem on Davie Street. We've had a truly interministerial approach. The very great help we've had from the Ministry of Education has been one of the outstanding assists. In fact, Mr. Ted Oliver, who was the coordinator appointed by ourselves, joined by the Mayor of Vancouver to address the Davie Street situation, has said that the kind of assist that we've had from the Vancouver School Board and the Ministry of Education has been one of the most outstanding assists that we've had in this whole program. Therefore we're very grateful for that. Perhaps you say that we shouldn't fit into the traditional mould of calling on the federal government. I think you use the word "traditional."

I think it has been proven that it is because of the federal legislation. It doesn't matter what we do in order to address the situation on Davie Street. I have said and I continue to tell you that it is a band-aid approach when there is federal legislation that can address it. I am pleased with the kind of support that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and myself have had in dealing with the Hon. Jean Chretien on this. We have been given his assurances that in October he will bring legislation to the House in Ottawa. We are certainly going to appreciate that. I know that it will be done. Of course, in the absence of anything being said by the two NDP members for Vancouver Centre regarding this Davie Street problem, I don't know how you can have it both ways. You say that you don't think I should make comments to the federal administration; on the other hand, you have two colleagues who haven't said anything at all.

May I address another point that you brought up? Let me just say I am pleased that you paid tribute to the Helpline for Children. It was a legacy of the Year of the Child and Family. I do believe it has saved the lives of children and babies in this province. I am really very pleased with the way that our staff has handled it. You are concerned about the information that comes from the Helpline. That is truly treated as highly confidential material. I would like to assure the member of that.

In response to any of the other comments that were made on the Year of the Child and Family, all I can say is that letter after letter and statement after statement since then show that British Columbia had the most aggressive Year of the Child and Family program in all of this country. I am pleased with the results that came from it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure at this time....

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I had not completed my questioning of the minister. I stopped because my time had run out. Surely the custom of the House is that I get to complete my questioning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair recognizes members during committee debate and the Chair has recognized the member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't have gotten up, but the hon. member was not paying attention.

MS. BROWN: I was paying attention.

[ Page 3850 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm sorry that I interfered, but one thing about estimates is that you can get up as many times as you want for as long as you want. I hope it doesn't continue for too long. My speech will be very short, and I wish to bring a couple of points to the minister's attention.

Today I want to bring to the minister's attention a small thing that has happened in Maple Ridge. There was a fire in the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Human Resources office about ten days ago, and the excellent staff is working under very adverse conditions. Although it may not have got to your level yet, I think it's important enough that you give it careful attention and have an investigation authorized, and get somebody in there and improve their situation.

What I rise to speak on is a different matter entirely. I wish to say that as many years as I've been in this House, one of the big jobs of an MLA seemed to be — certainly in our area and in others that I know of — the complaints from the Human Resources people regarding the inadequacy of how they were being treated. Well, I want to tell you that in the last two years it has petered out to absolute zero, and I think it reflects the attitude of the minister toward the people and the very humane attitude that the minister has toward the people in the Human Resources sector. I just feel it's not accidental. I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased and delighted, and I think that most in this House recognize that happening. Plaudits are not something that you do very much of in this House, but I shouldn't say that; I just couldn't pass without saying it.

What I want to bring to the attention of this House is something so nice about a program that's going on in our constituency and in Maple Ridge, and the place is called "Cradlehaven." Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that over the past two years I was asked by this group that operates Cradlehaven: "Would you please come and have a look at it?" Well, these are young children — one, two, three years old — that have physical and mental disabilities, and I didn't want to go there; I just couldn't stand the pressure. But I'm telling you, I steeled myself one day, and Mrs. Calm and her daughter who operate this thing, 30 children, said: "You must come." Well, I just had to come and I went. I'll tell you I was treated to something that I didn't believe was possible: to see the love and kindness of those people in looking after these children who are the responsibility of us all. I think Cradlehaven is something that will make us feel good about humanity that such a condition can exist. I know the minister had a great deal to do with making the facilities proper for them. It's a private organization run by excellent people. There is one little problem that I brought to the attention of the minister already; that is, I don't think they're getting enough money.

I just want to say that this is a beautiful program. These helpless little children — one, two and three years old — it just does your heart good to think that society cares enough to see that they are looked after in clean, beautiful, airy surroundings; I didn't believe it existed anywhere. I want to share with the House what is going on beyond the city of Vancouver.

MS. BROWN: I just want to respond to one of the comments made by the minister about Indian children. One of the things that came out of the conference was that the shortage of Indian foster homes was directly related to the refusal of the department to pay relatives to be foster parents. As soon as the Minister of Human Resources is prepared to pay grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts and older sisters and brothers to be foster parents, there is not going to be any shortage of fostering homes for those children. That was the theme. I took notes. One after another the grandmothers stood up and said: "We want to take care of our grandchildren but we can't afford to do it. Why are you paying strangers to do it, but you won't pay us to do it?" At the end the minister stood up and said: "Because it's not policy." So I'm merely suggesting to the minister that maybe this is something that should be policy in her department: not just for native Indian homes, but for all families. The first place one should look when a child is in need of a home is to the child's extended family, whether that child is a native Indian or not. Why doesn't the department do that, rather than paying to place a child in the home of a non-relative? That's the recommendation I'm making to the ministry.

To quote the minister's figures from the conference, she told us that 40 percent of the children apprehended and taken into care were native Indian. I would imagine that that statistic still holds. The interesting phenomena in Vancouver is that most of these children are infants and preschoolers — certainly in the downtown area. That makes it even worse, when we are taking infants and preschoolers out of their own homes and culture and placing them somewhere else. That is certainly something that the ministry should address itself to.

The statistics about suicide among Indian adolescents is horrendous — certainly in the Grandview area. That again is directly related to the whole culture conflict thing that takes place when the child moves from the reserve to the urban setting, doesn't fit in, is then placed in a non-Indian foster home and is just not able to adjust and relate. I would imagine that the first step in dealing with that problem would be for the ministry to look at the idea of subsidizing relatives to take care of the children as a first step. If that doesn't succeed and the child then has to be placed in a group-home situation or in a special-care home, fine. But that should not be the first step; that should be the last step.

The minister also dealt with a program about collecting payments for the spouse who is left. I think that's an excellent program and would certainly support it if at the same time it were accompanied by the ministry changing its policy in terms of how much of that money a welfare recipient is permitted to keep. Let me give you an example. There was an instance where a woman was in receipt of welfare and she was supposed to receive $100 per month in maintenance from her husband. He did not pay his maintenance; he was two years in arrears. Finally they went to family court and an agreement was made. He agreed to pay $1,800 in back payment as a lump sum. As soon as that money was paid, the Ministry of Human Resources said: "Oh, so you've got $1,800. Now you're no longer eligible for your welfare cheque." In fact what had happened was that for 24 months that woman was operating $100 a month short in terms of expenses for herself and her children. She had had to borrow. She had had to accrue a number of debts in order to be able to survive, because even with her welfare plus her $100 a month in maintenance she was not living in the lap of luxury. She was barely able to make ends meet in terms of taking care of herself and her two children. When she received that $1,800 it had to be paid back in debts which she had built up over those two years when he had failed to make his $100 per month maintenance payment. But the Ministry of HumanResources insisted that: "You've got $1,800. Therefore you are no longer eligible for welfare. This is it."

[ Page 3851 ]

Now the ministry doesn't make any sense. The ministry is prepared to subsidize the family when the spouse who is away falls into arrears, and then when the back payments are made, they go to the ministry. No question about that. If he hasn't paid for two years, when he does pay that $2,400, or whatever it is, it belongs to the ministry, because the ministry has subsidized the family for that time. However, if the ministry has not subsidized the family and the family has had to borrow money from elsewhere, then the ministry cannot say: "This is now your income." This was one particular case the minister knows about. Letters went back and forth. There were hearings and finally the whole thing was renegotiated.

But it's got to be policy. What the ministry has to say is: "When he doesn't pay, then we will pick up the slack and we will collect from him." If that's what the program is all about, then the program certainly has my support, Mr. Chairman.

The other thing that the minister talked about was the increases in GAIN. At the time when those increases were brought out, there was an indication that it was not enough. Now a study has been done by the United Way, and they have brought out the same kind of report. The increase is not sufficient.

There has been an interesting by-product, or even a dangerous by-product, of two things happening: the elimination of the special needs grant, and the fact that the income is not enough.

There is an increase in the amount of violence directed at the workers. Certainly that's what's happening in the downtown areas. The clients are beginning to get short-tempered and ill-tempered, and they are starting to hit the workers. That is directly related to the fact that the workers are having to say no too often. And they are having to say no when they really should be saying yes. But they have no alternative because of the policies of the department. Now either that special needs grant is going to have to be reinstituted or the income assistance rate is going to have to be increased and section 8 of the GAIN Act is going to have to be proclaimed, which will peg it to the cost of living and there will be an annual increment. People in receipt of welfare know that and can expect that.

If that doesn't happen, the kind of violence that we're beginning to see directed at social workers is going to escalate. Morale is low, Mr. Chairman, in the income assistance offices — certainly in downtown Vancouver anyway — and in all of the urban centres where there is a large component of single men, for example, on welfare, or single-parent families who are just not able to survive on the income that they're getting, as well as now not being able to call on the ministry for additional expenses because the special needs grant has been eliminated. Now the only time you can get a grant, Mr. Chairman, or an increase of any sort — any additional funding — is by proving that it's such a crisis that your life is in jeopardy unless you get that. So the ministry has to start looking at that.

That is particularly disconcerting when one looks at the fact that this year again the ministry has underspent its budget. I don't know why we debate the estimates, because there's no relevance between the amount of money which the ministry asks for and the amount of money which the ministry spends. There is always a discrepancy between the estimated amount of money given to this ministry and the amount of money it spends. At the same time, we are finding that programs the minister is bragging about, like infant development programs and other programs like that, do not have the staff they need. They are being short-changed in terms of resources and facilities and funding. Yet we find that money is allocated to the ministry and the ministry is not using it.

In winding up my comments, I just wanted to bring to the minister's attention the low morale in the ministry, the violence which is presently being directed toward her staff, and the gap between public relations material coming out of the department and the reality in terms of the delivery of services. I say that this is not acceptable in view of the fact that once again this ministry has underspent its budget. There is a discrepancy between the estimates, as voted on in this House, and the budget as it is spent.

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.

HORSE RACING TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 64 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.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the 1979 annual report of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.