1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.