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)

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3807 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 3807

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

On vote 125: minister's office –– 3807

Mr. King

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

Introduction and first reading –– 3813

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

Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 3814

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

Introduction and first reading –– 3814

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

Introduction and first reading –– 3814

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

Introduction and first reading –– 3814

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

Introduction and first reading –– 3815

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

Introduction and first reading –– 3815

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

On vote 125: minister's office –– 3815

Mr. Davis

Mr. Barber

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, this weekend Hon. Speaker Schroeder enters the hospital

for a very serious operation, and if it is your wish I will be most

happy to express to him personally your very best wishes for every

success in that operation.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF TOURISM ACT

Hon. Mrs. Jordan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Ministry of Tourism Act.

Bill

53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the statements made yesterday by the

hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). As you know, I

introduced the estimates of the ministry yesterday with reference to

some of the things that we would like to accomplish and some of the

things that we have accomplished. I didn't quite finish some of the

areas that we would like to cover in the future in our ministry. If I

could just give a couple of points, then I will address the remarks

made by the hon. second member for Vancouver South. I think his remarks

were particularly urgent for people who have the problem of autism in

their families. I would like to give it the time that it deserves.

referred very quickly yesterday to the enforcement of maintenance

orders. Because I covered that very specifically yesterday, I will not

repeat those words. But I want this House to know that our ministry is

very concerned about the problem. I want this House to understand that

we as citizens of British Columbia cannot leave the enforcement of

maintenance orders in the situation it is in now. It gives very

difficult problems to the spouses and children who are left in very

poor circumstances and with a standard of living which is less than we

want for the people of our province. Suffice it to say that this

ministry will aggressively pursue the changes that are needed. In

cooperation and coordination with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams), we will continue to do just that. I hope that in the next 12

months this House will be able to address that in a meaningful way.

Secondly,

I gave a very short reference to a program which I will launch in

September. I guess the success of that depends very greatly on those

people in our ministry, the attitudes of the people of the province and

the changes that we want. It really addresses one very specific point

of view: that we live in a province which has great natural resources

and great opportunities, and those opportunities must be available to

all in the province of British Columbia, not to exclude anyone who

wishes to have an opportunity to be independent in the province of

British Columbia. It will address itself to those people who now are on

income assistance in the province. I very much hope that the pilot

project that we have started in the province, which has an 80 percent

success rate of returning people to a productive workplace and a

productive way of life, will be continued throughout the province and

will be successful in the next year. You will be hearing more about

that in September and I hope that all members of the Legislature —

every one of our members of the Legislature — will be as enthused and

excited about this new change in income assistance programs as I am. I

think that it will be different than anything that has been done in

Canada and I hope that you too will look forward to that happening to

give an opportunity to those of our people who live in an area

which.... As I have said before, our taxpayers have been generous. We

have the very best program in Canada for those who live with the income

assistance. We have more programs and opportunities in this province

than we have anywhere in Canada, but it doesn't matter how many dollars

our generous taxpayers will provide, there will never be sufficient

dollars, because the answer is not contained in dollars, Mr. Chairman;

the answer is contained in a different way of life for those who are,

as I have said, sentenced to a life of income assistance and, very

often, not of their own choosing.

I would like to just

address also the plans for the ministry in terms of senior citizens,

which I didn't get to touching on yesterday, because yesterday, I

think, as the old saying goes, time flies so fast when you're having

fun. Yesterday, when I was introducing our future programs, the time

ran out, as you knew, Mr. Chairman. May I just say that our programs

for senior citizens in this province are programs which our people

should be very, very proud of — to be a part of a province that

provides as we do provide in this province for senior citizens.

know that I'm proud of the program that we have. I know that in every

area that we have addressed.... I have received letters from senior

citizens regarding our Pharmacare program, and I wish I had time to

read some of them, because they are remarkable. In terms of Pharmacare,

the weight of effort has been taken off senior citizens.

referred to the SAFER program yesterday. It is one of the most exciting

programs in the country. Since its inception it has been studied by

practically every jurisdiction in North America; it is being copied by

other jurisdictions in Canada. We are very proud of it.

Again,

I think our senior citizens are the best treated in the country. I know

that the members of the opposition take great delight in bringing

forward examples of where this is not so. Let me say that, compared to

other areas of the country, with the services we provide our senior

citizens we do not have to take a back seat to anywhere else in this

country. In this session you will be addressing a program for

denticare, announced by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), for the

first time in this province and in this country.

[ Page 3808 ]

This

program will take another burden of care from the senior citizens of

our province. It is banner legislation. It is a banner social program

which will lead the country, and I suggest again, it will be copied by

other jurisdictions. The difference between other jurisdictions and our

own, Mr. Chairman, is because of the management of our economy, the

exciting economic development of this province, and the leadership of

our government's program.

MR. LEA: Name one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I can name more than one. I can name many economic developments which

have accrued to this province and to the exciting program. Yes, let me

name many. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would like me to

expand on that. I have input into a portion, along with my colleagues

in the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and, to some

extent, the Ministry of the Attorney-General. All the social services

programs and the social services ministries of this government are

highly dependent upon a strong economy in the province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, while people in this House, while

the members of the opposition, I hope, will address themselves today to

those things which are the concern of the poor, the disadvantaged and

the elderly in this province, I hope that we will have those people in

that discussion understand that hand-in-hand with social progress has

to come economic well-being and economic progress. I know that the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) will soon be in her estimates

and will be telling you of the economic developments that have gone on

in this province because of this government.

MR. LEA: Name one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

It's interesting that the member for Prince Rupert should ask the

question across the floor: "Name one." Why, that is the member who,

when he was the Minister of Highways under the socialist government,

said "Tourists go home," or words to that effect. I'm certainly

paraphrasing and I'm taking a bit of liberty with that paraphrasing,

Mr. Chairman. But let me just say that the member for Prince Rupert

asks us to name initiatives: yes, we can name all kinds of initiatives.

MR. LEA: Name one.

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

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Well, I like the way the opposition laughs at economic initiatives;

it's funny how they laugh and giggle at economic initiatives that

result in social process.

MR. LEA: Name one that's happened.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I wonder if I could have the attention of all members

and of the committee. Will all members please come to order. It is

really against our standing orders to interrupt a member who is

speaking.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, I was discussing senior citizens in that vein. As I say,

the denticare program will give them yet another program which will

enlighten their lives. But let me just say, on our ministry's present

and future directions in terms of senior citizens, that I think the

greatest aim in this direction in all the social services in the

interministerial committee is somehow to attack the loneliness that

some senior citizens feel in our province.

There is no

question that those kinds of things cannot be legislated — we cannot

put in legislation in this House — but all of us as citizens can, in

some way, attack that problem of loneliness, strengthen the solutions

to those problems in each community, which will give direction to the

alleviation of loneliness, which has to, I guess, be the greatest

scourge of the elderly in our province.

We should strengthen

recreation opportunities, and our ministry is working towards that, as

are our interministerial committee and my colleagues in the social

services committee.

We look forward to a very good year,

recognizing the Year of the Disabled in 1981. We believe that in the

Year of the Disabled the recognition of those people.... The problems

of the aged who are disabled by age, the problems of those who are

mentally handicapped and the problems of those who are physically

handicapped are a very high priority. In talking of priorities, and

completing that which I believe is of importance to those of us in the

ministry, I think that has been a very high priority in the past.

Let

me just mention again Mr. John Noble's name — our deputy minister, whom

I mentioned yesterday. High on his priority list has been the training

and retraining of staff, which he continues to address himself to. We

hope to have — I believe we do have now — the finest group of people

who are addressing themselves to the needs of people in our province.

We will continue to make sure that the staff of the Ministry of Human

Resources is constantly upgraded and constantly addressing itself to

the best legislation across the country and the world, and the best

programs. We'll bring those to the people of British Columbia in a

meaningful way.

May I now address the questions that were

raised by the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). I

want to tell you that I'm pleased that a member of this House has

brought the problems of autistic children to the floor of the House,

because, as he said yesterday, too long was it a problem that was not

only not even identified by the medical profession, but was not truly

recognized by the public at large. It is a horrendous problem for those

who have autistic children in their families.

I don't know

if the hon. second member for Vancouver South knows, but this

government and the prior Social Credit government were really the first

governments to ever recognize that there should be services for autism

in the province of British Columbia. It was under the former Social

Credit administration that the very first program was started for

autistic children, and I'd like to say that it was because of a meeting

that I held by gathering some parents who had written to me from all

over the province — each of them with his own specific problem and

concern — that the association for autistic children really began. I

don't know if he knows that, and it's not important. It's important

that it got started.

[ Page

3809 ]

We gathered together in the government building in Burnaby one

evening. I gathered all of these people who hadn't met before and I

said: "Look, we understand now the problems of those parents with

autistic children. Let us all get together. It is a very sad commentary

on the attitude of the socialists who followed that government that as

soon as they became government, because they looked at a program that

was a Social Credit government program.... It was just on the verge.

The property and the house had been bought and the people were ready to

move in. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman — I have to share with you — the

government that came in in 1972 cancelled that program. I will never

feel at all comfortable knowing that there were several children who at

that age were really lost in the system. It doesn't matter how much

effort has been made since we became government: those children were

another four years older by the time we reached them again. It's too

bad that some of those children have been lost in the system, and they

are today. That socialist side of the House must take full

responsibility for that. It was a very sad thing.

The

Tsawwassen house that is now established is a residential house for

children and they are doing a good job. I have visited it. The staff

there have a very great challenge to undertake.

The

Laurel House Society that the member spoke of is an excellent service.

It was born, as I said — or maybe as the member said — through the

previous Social Credit administration, when at last people began to

identify autism and autistic children in the province of British

Columbia. Special services for children, under our ministry, now try to

take, do take and have been successful in taking the Laurel House

example and all of the experimental programs for children that they

have refined over the years in a meaningful way. They have taken them

and tried to duplicate them throughout in the province, not in

residences but in bringing the families to Laurel House, training them

and then having them return home. So a person who lives in Penticton or

Atlin and has an autistic child does not have to leave their home or

residence in that particular area in order to come to the city of

Vancouver for services. That has been done in a meaningful way. I am

glad to share that with the House because I don't think it is

particularly well known.

In terms of autistic children, I

would also like to refer all of us to the Infant Development Program,

where the identification of any particular handicap, including autism,

is very real and is very successfully done. The Infant Development

Program, as you know, has only been in the province for the last couple

of years. Early diagnosis is very important and is happening today in

the province.

Laurel House desires to upgrade its facilities

to give a better service. As the member explained, it is a very old

house. I recall being in the house when it was first opened, and in

subsequent years, they have added on and tried to refine a very old

home. I would say it is probably at least 40 years old, if not older.

As the member said yesterday, it is bursting at the seams. There is no

question that a replacement for that home should be found. I see it as

an interministerial committee problem; I think the member recognized

that too.

I'd like to inform the House that very real progress is being made in interministerial

cooperation. I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of

our province that the social services programs have been better administered

in an interministerial way and in a realistic way in each and every community,

not just in the city of Victoria and the parliament buildings where the ministers

and deputy ministers meet, but also in an outreach way in the community, through

the interministerial committees. That is happening at the local level and it

is happening successfully. I really see incredible progress in that regard.

If a child is autistic and is identified by the interministerial committee in

Atlin or Penticton, the service is immediately brought to the family's attention

and they have that service.

I'd

like to pay tribute to my committee members on the social services

committee, because it is working, and to the deputy ministers'

committee, the interministerial child committee and the

interministerial committee for children in crisis. It's all working. I

think it is working because of the kinds of people who are involved in

social services in this province. There is no question that they are

extremely dedicated. caring people.

Laurel House has an

Education component; it unquestionably has a Human Resources component

and a Health component. I would like to give the commitment today to

the hon. second member for Vancouver South that we will address it in a

meaningful, interministerial way. The service deserves to have

financial backing and presence in the community. It requires a very

good and proper place in which those dedicated staff members may work.

I am very supportive of it. I would like to thank the member for

bringing their concerns to the House. I know he has brought them to me

personally and I have been very cognizant of the problem. Mr. Chairman,

I would just like to suggest to the member that the interministerial

committee of social services will address it in a meaningful way. I

hope that we can find solutions for Laurel House very shortly.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I want to get to some of the minister's duties as Deputy

Premier of the province, prior to dealing with the Human Resources

areas that the opposition will be addressing itself to. The opposition

feels it's rather important to have proper accountability in the

Legislature of all ministers of the Crown to the public. There are a

number of unanswered questions surrounding the Deputy Premier's

responsibility that go back for some considerable time. I would like to

ask some very specific questions of the minister in her role as Deputy

Premier.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, yesterday

I tried to be quite amiable with members of the opposition when they

took this tack, but I'm going to ask a ruling of the Chair.

duties as Deputy Premier are not covered in the estimates book — do not

in any way relate to anything other than the office of the Minister of

Human Resources. I am always, and always have been, very pleased and

honoured and feel highly responsible for taking on any duties regarding

my other title as Deputy Premier, and I will continue to do so. I've

never shunned that and won't today.

Mr. Chairman, I make this point, and I would like to ask a ruling

from you. In the executive council I not only have responsibility as

Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources; I am also, when the

Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is out of the province,

responsible for duties as the alternate minister there. When the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is out of the

province I am responsible as Minister of Transportation and Highways as

well. I am pleased to take these responsibilities, although I have to

say that in both cases, as it is with our

[ Page 3810 ]

Premier,

they address the problems in their responsibilities so well that I

haven't had a great deal to do in that regard in any of those cases.

But I have been pleased to do so when needed.

In all of the

executive council the same prevails. I could go through the list, but I

don't think it's important to do so. When the hon. Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Mair) is not here, the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Smith) takes his place. Failing either of them being in the province,

then the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) takes the place.

make the point, Mr. Chairman, and I have no concern about answering any

questions within my responsibility, but quite frankly I suggest to you

that we are not getting very far with the estimates of the Ministry of

Human Resources when the members of the opposition are trying to play

politics in terms of the titles of the alternate ministers.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. minister, courtesy in reply is always a feature of

the House, and allusions like that should not be accepted.

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

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

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

The

hon. Minister of Human Resources from time to time will act in her

position as Deputy Premier when asked to do so by the Premier. If the

Chair allowed debate to continue on all aspects or, in fact, replacing

the Premier by the Deputy Premier, then we would be repeating the

estimates of the Premier. I would ask that all members contain debate

to the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources. The administrative

actions of the Deputy Premier can be debated if, in fact, we can

establish any specific time or date or function, where the hon.

minister whose estimates are before us was acting in place of the

Premier. That is my finding. With that I once again recognize the hon.

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke on vote 125.

MR. KING:

I had risen on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wished to speak to the

point of order raised by the Minister of Human Resources, and Mr.

Chairman shut me out of making a point of order in response prior to

making his decision. I have difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in appreciating

how the Chairman can arrive at a decision on a point of order which is

raised when the tradition, the practice and the custom in this House is

to listen to the various points of view on a point of order. I was

prevented from responding, and I would have appreciated that courtesy

prior to a decision being made.

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

MR. KING:

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that a minister acting is not at issue

here. All members of the executive council from time to time act in

other cabinet positions in the absence of a colleague. But the fact

remains that each estimate represented by a minister is available for

debate in this Legislature, and there is accountability.

The

Deputy Premier is a different issue altogether. It is not an acting

position, Mr. Chairman; it is one designated by the executive council

as their choice. It is a permanent position. We have the estimates of

that individual now before the House, and for one to accept the glory

of that position without at the same time accepting the obligation to

be accountable to the public is something foreign to parliamentary

democracy.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, under what vote, under

what circumstance, the opposition would have an opportunity to question

the individual action of the individual acting as Deputy Premier if it

is foreclosed to us on this occasion. That would mean that we have a

designated member of the executive council of the province of British

Columbia who is totally immune from examination of her conduct and her

responsibilities in that narrow role under any circumstance in the

Legislature. As far as I am concerned, I intend to hold her

accountable, not for the Premier's responsibilities but for her own

conduct and for that which she has, by public record, undertaken on

behalf of the government in the province.

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

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

did not, in my previous statement, indicate in any way that you could

not debate the office of the Deputy Premier. But I did remind you that

this is an office and these are administrative actions that are

designated from time to time by the Premier to the hon. member whose

estimates are before us. In order to debate the administrative actions

of the minister when the minister is acting as Deputy Premier, we would

have to establish the dates and the assignments given to the minister

by the Premier. Having established those terms and times, one can

debate the administrative actions of the Deputy Premier, the Minister

of Human Resources.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I'd

like to thank the Chairman for maintaining what the minister has tried

to deny — that she is the Deputy Premier. This goes along with the

point of order, I think, to give you some help in your decision. As the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has pointed out, from time to

time one cabinet minister is made the acting minister of another

portfolio while someone is out of town or unavailable. But during that

time you don't have your name put on the door. At one time you could be

the acting minister of five or six departments; you don't have all the

names on your door all year. This minister has her name on the door

designating her as Deputy Premier all year long; she has duties all

year long, as far as we can ascertain. I said yesterday that surely it

wasn't a political sop for good political organization that she was

labelled Deputy Premier — just for political purposes. I didn't believe

that until the minister tried to sniggle out of it today and say: "I'm

not really the Deputy Premier. I'm just like the other ministers when

they act as acting ministers for other portfolios."

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

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

[ Page 3811 ]

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

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

The hon. minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The comments that have just been made by the hon. member for Prince

Rupert are a complete reversal of the things that I have said. There is

no way that I said that I would deny that I was the Deputy Premier.

There is no way that I have said that I would deny any of the

responsibilities. The member is trying to put a different connotation

altogether onto the statement that I made; it's a completely different

statement. I won't accept that statement from that....

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

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

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, this is an absolutely ridiculous argument. The member for

Prince Rupert, in his incredible statements, is just....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, we are turning points of order into a debate. The Chair

has indicated that, in fact, of course the Deputy Premier is the Deputy

Premier. However, those are from time to time designated

responsibilities, and in order to question and debate the

administrative actions of the Deputy Premier, one would have to

ascertain when that designation was made.

I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY:

On a further point of order that I thought might perhaps be taken into

consideration in this deliberation we're now having, for your

information, Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Premier brought into this House a

bill on the trade and convention centre under the name of "Deputy

Premier." So I would presume that this gives the position of Deputy

Premier more than just an ad hoc nature. I would like that to be taken

into your deliberation before you curtail debate on her duties.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair is not trying to limit debate in any way, shape or form. What

the Chair is attempting to do is eliminate any re-canvassing of the

Premier's estimates, except where the minister may be involved. The

member for Burnaby North pointed out a case where the minister was

involved, and is responsible as Deputy Premier for another matter that

was before the House. Once again, I find that the Deputy Premier can be

questioned, but only when we can endorse the fact that the

administrative actions were carried out by the minister as designated

by the Premier, and given her role as Deputy Premier in that instance.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, when I gained the floor on the first occasion, before I

had an opportunity to even ask a question, a point of order was raised,

apparently assuming the content of what I intended to say. I find that

a bit curious.

We've gone through an empty exercise, because

the minister was not prepared to listen to the questions that I

intended to ask. Had she done so, I suggest that she would have found

that they were totally relevant to her responsibilities as Deputy

Premier.

The other point I would like to make — and it's a

delicate one, Mr. Chairman, and I intend it with nothing but kindness

and generosity — is that when my colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

was making a point of order and attributed a statement to the minister,

the Chair intervened and said: "No, she didn't say that."

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

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I know that the Chair does not intend to enter into

debate, but it is very important that the Chair be neutral at all

times, and I just raise that as a reminder that it's very important to

demonstrate that continuing impartiality.

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

MR. KING:

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Premier referred in a press report dated

November 22, 1979, to his disappointment regarding the handling of the

dirty tricks affair — that was the advice by two Social Credit caucus

staff people that dirty tricks be used in campaigning in the province

of British Columbia. The Premier made this statement, and I think it's

directly relevant to the minister's responsibility.

"Premier

Bennett said Wednesday that if he had been in Victoria when the dirty

tricks scandal surfaced, it would have been cleaned up by now. Bennett

was on a trade mission to Japan and Korea when reporters first learned

Social Credit Party members were sending phony letters to newspaper

editors. The Premier admitted he knew about a mysterious bank account

used to finance the Vancouver seminar where the dirty tricks tape was

recorded. The expenses of researchers Ellen McKay and Jack Kelly, who

had advocated playing dirty in the last provincial election campaign,

were also paid from this account.

"Bennett

said the account was opened to ensure government funds were not used

for party functions, but he would not say whether the account had been

closed, why party officials were not aware of it, or who had signing

authority for the account."

Two other members of the

executive council also criticized the handling of the dirty tricks

affair, the hon. Minister of Environment at that time, Rafe Mair, and

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Hon. William Vander Zalm, said: "The

government would not find itself in the position it is now — dogged by

the press and careening from one revelation to another — if it had

tackled the scandal squarely from the outset."

All of this

implies that it was the duty and responsibility of the senior member of

the executive council at that time to handle that whole issue

differently and more squarely. Indeed, the Deputy Premier was present,

I understand, at the seminar where the two staff members advocated the

"play dirty" campaign.

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

[ Page 3812 ]

that

seminar as the senior political officer there, and was blissfully

unaware of what was being advocated at that seminar. The second

question I have for her, Mr. Chairman, is whether the Premier ever

explained to her where she had gone wrong in her handling of the dirty

tricks affair, and how he would have handled it more squarely, to

provide to the public some assurance that this kind of political action

was not going to be reverted to in the province of British Columbia.

Did the Premier explain where she went wrong? Did he give any direction

regarding the handling of this kind of scurrilous activity in the

future?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in an

effort to try to assist the House, let me say this: on the answer to

the second question.... The member is giving me really two or three

questions, but I'll narrow in on the one, and if he wants any further

explanation.... As I understand it, he said, "Did the Premier suggest

where I had gone wrong?" as being Deputy Premier at the time that he

was away in Japan. The answer to that question is no.

On the

first question where he refers to a seminar, he is asking the question:

am I asking the Legislature to believe that I did not have anything to

do with the remarks or hear the remarks? The answer to that, Mr.

Chairman, is yes. I'm asking the Legislature to believe that and as

hon. members I assume that you will believe that. I also assume and

appreciate that you've heard my public statements in that regard, that

that seminar was one that was organized by the party. I was invited to

make an address; I arrived at the Bayshore Inn, made the address and

left. Both prior to and after the address, I had other commitments to

which I addressed myself, and they were not at the Bayshore Inn but

otherwise on business of the province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. KING:

Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister suggests to us then, and indeed she

has advised the Legislature, that the Deputy Premier — senior political

officer for her party — attended an election seminar where addresses

were given by two researchers of the caucus advocating phony letters

and play-dirty politics, and she remained blissfully unaware of that

fact. No one there advised her that this kind of advocacy had taken

place, and I believe that shortly thereafter her own personal executive

assistant, who worked in her ministerial office by political

appointment — not through the public service, but appointed by

order-in-council — her personal representative, acted as the

distributor of the tapes which were made of the dirty-trick advocacy.

the minister advising the House that she was blissfully unaware of the

advice and the approach that was being taken at the Bayshore Inn at the

seminar? Is she advising the House that she was also blissfully unaware

of the fact that her own personal executive assistant, acting solely

under her direction as a political representative, distributed those

tapes throughout the province to Social Credit local constituency

associations? Is the minister asking us to believe that too?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, I want to share with you and the House that everything

being asked by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has already been asked

and is a matter of public record and has been a matter of public record

for some time: The questions that have been asked by him have been

asked many times over by members of the media, and this member of the

opposition is recycling all of that which has been going on for some

time, and which has been answered for some time. It's a matter of

public record.

If I am to answer every question of the

opposition today, then if we will confine it to the time that the

Premier is out of the province and I'm acting as Deputy Premier — if

that is your ruling, I don't know what it is.... But could I just say

that during the time the Bayshore seminar was on, according to my

memory, the Premier was not out of the province. Mr. Chairman, if

you're going to ask me to try to recall when the Premier was or was not

out of the province, then.... He is very seldom out of the province, as

you know, unless it is on the business of the public and in

intergovernmental federal-provincial conferences and provincial

conferences. Unless we're going to establish that, I will have to be

selective about the answering of the questions, because there is just

no other way that I can handle it. The opposition obviously wishes to

handle it in a far different way. The opposition also knows full well

that all of the questions that have been asked in these last two or

three minutes by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke have been answered.

It is not a point of order that I stand on, Mr. Chairman; I'm

responding to the questions. They have been answered very fully without

any reservation and with complete candour by this member of the

Legislature. You are simply recycling old news and bringing it up front

to make a political point. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I can't accept that

line of questioning.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order,

the Deputy Premier has now said on two or three occasions.... A while

ago I wrote down one note in which she said she was Deputy Premier at

the time he, the Premier, was away in Japan. Now she just said the same

sort of thing here.

I have here the official seating plan of

the Legislature, issued under Speaker Schroeder's authority. In the

seating plan it shows the seat held by the "Hon. G.M. McCarthy (1st

Van.-Little Mountain)" identified as being Deputy Premier and Minister

of Human Resources. Hansard , which lists the names of cabinet

ministers, also has, as an identification of the member, "Deputy

Premier and Minister of Human Resources." All the records of the House

that are used identify that member as being Deputy Premier and Minister

of Human Resources. I maintain that she is Deputy Premier forever, not

just when the Premier happens to be away; she is Deputy Premier at all

times. She receives that office not by designation or delegation from

the Premier, but she received that office and was appointed to that

office by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. It's a permanent function.

submit that she cannot weave her way around this simple question by

identifying it to dates and being prepared to answer only on certain

dates when the Premier happens to be away or incapacitated or whatever.

She is Deputy Premier forever and has that full responsibility and has

the full obligation to report thereon to this House for all time. I

think the Chair should so rule: that the minister should respond to the

questions directed to her with respect to her activity as Deputy

Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair

obviously has some trouble in determining what actually would fall

within the scope of the Deputy Premier's estimates per se. To possibly

resolve the matter successfully and in a more

[ Page 3813 ]

learned

way, I would suggest hon. members allow the Chair time to more

thoroughly review the matter and, in the meantime, if it is agreeable

to members, continue with the estimates for a while on the specifics of

the Human Resources issues. The Chair must not in any way either be

seen to, or be seen as attempting to limit debate; that is not the

function of the Chair. The function of the Chair is to enforce the

rules of debate that guide this House. If that is to be done

effectively, then I would ask members to allow the Chair a short time

to consult and review the authorities — a decision will be brought down

— and, in the meantime, to continue on the debates of the Minister of

Human Resources' aspect of the portfolio. This will allow the Chair an

opportunity to bring in a decision that will help to guide all members

and effectively resolve what has become a bit of an impasse in debate

in the House.

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

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, there are two things: the minister indicated that she

would be prepared to selectively account for her conduct as Deputy

Premier, and she indicated that certain information has been made

public and, therefore, should not be canvassed in the Legislature.

First,

I want to say to the Chair that information that may have been printed

in the newspapers is no substitute for accountability to the parliament

of this province. While I attribute no improper motive to the minister,

I think the Chair and the House will recognize that from time to time

politicians do claim to have been misquoted or misrepresented or to

have had their remarks taken out of context. So to suggest that their

responsibility to the Legislature has been fully satisfied simply by a

statement that is attributed to them in the media is, in my view,

totally misunderstanding one's responsibilities to parliament.

the second case, I appreciate the Chair's request for a recess, but I

would hope that the Chair would not contemplate interfering with the

flow of debate. I certainly am, and I would expect my colleagues are,

quite in favour of allowing a recess if the committee wishes to rise

and recess for ten minutes while the Chairman consults his legal

advisers. We'd be most happy to do so. To do otherwise would be to

direct the opposition in terms of their priorities on how they conduct

debate. I would suggest, with all due respect, that that would not be

the intention of the Chair.

MR. LEA: On the same

point of order, basically your task will be a difficult one, because

the end result will be on your decision of whether or not this province

has a Deputy Premier. I'd like to give you some more information that

would lead the opposition to believe that the minister is the Deputy

Premier all the time, as the minister has claimed up until today. Why

is it — and I would like the Speaker to check this — that this minister

has a higher office staff than any other minister? The only other

portfolio that has the same number of staff as the minister is the one

that she used to occupy as Provincial Secretary. She has, on her

personal staff, nine employees. The closest to that in any other

ministry is seven, and a lot of them are six and five. The only other

office that has nine personal staff is the Provincial Secretary, which

that minister occupied previously. I imagine there hasn't been time to

take out those two staff to this point.

I'd like you to consider, when making your decision, Mr. Speaker, that if you decide that this minister is not the Deputy Premier

all of the time, then her name will have to come off all the stationery

and the House list and she may not be referred to by you when she takes

her place in this House as Deputy Premier. The question before you is:

is this minister Deputy Premier or is she not?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, again I must confess that in this particular instance the

Chair has been placed in a very difficult position. The Chair feels it

would not be totally appropriate for the Chair to rule specifically at

this time. At the same time, a recess is hardly called for with other

scope of debate available. However, the point raised by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke on the matter of continuity of debate is a valid

one. Would the House allow the Chair just a moment or two, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and I'd like

the members of government and opposition to know why. We have a number of message

bills, which unfortunately were delayed in transit for 10 o'clock, and we

would like to get these introduced in the interests of both the government and

the opposition. I would like to do that at this point in time. I therefore move

the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Once the bills

have been introduced we will be returning to Committee of Supply on the same

vote.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT 1980

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1980.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm), I ask leave to move first reading of the bill

accompanying the message.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. minister, I move that said message

and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 3814 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1980.

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

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I move that said message and the bill accompanying the

same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Ministry of intergovernmental Relations Act.

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

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I move that said message and the bill accompanying the

same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

63, Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Mineral Amendment Act, 1980.

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

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I move that said message and the bill accompanying the

same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

62, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Administrator:

a bill intituled Utilities Commission Act.

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

Leave not granted.

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

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

[ Page 3815 ]

Bill

52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1980.

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

Leave not granted.

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

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

55 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HOLIDAY SHOPPING REGULATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Holiday Shopping Regulation Act.

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

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message and the bill accompanying the same

be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to devote my remarks specifically to the

estimates of the Minister of Human Resources. I'd like to begin by

congratulating her on the great job she's doing. I'd like to

congratulate the hon. minister, first, on the great job she's doing

administering that ministry, but more particularly I'd like to thank

her very much for the warmth and people ability she has to deal with

this very important ministry.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I will remind hon. members that it is quite

unparliamentary to interrupt another member who is speaking. With that

said, I will ask the House to please come to order.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I had the floor. A dispute arose as

to whether or not the line of debate and questioning was totally in

order. The Chairman promised to return with a ruling, which he has not

yet done. To now recognize another member when a flow of debate was

going once again violates custom, tradition and practice in this House

and smacks of a coverup, an attempt to interfere with debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair will have to ask the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to

withdraw the word I "coverup." My understanding is that that word has

been found to be unparliamentary. In any event, the Chair finds the

word unparliamentary.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I believe the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke made an accusation that there was a coverup. I

believe he was referring to the Chair being responsible for that, in

that the Chairman recognized the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. I

believe it was that recognition to which the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke referred. Therefore I think that member has accused

the Chair of a coverup, and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has been asked for a withdrawal by

the Chair and by another hon. member, and I ask that member to withdraw

the word "coverup."

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

[ Page 3816 ]

preting

my remarks. I in no way accused the Chair of coverup; I accused the

government of covering up and attempting to evade the accountability of

a minister. That's whom I accused, and you, Mr. Minister, are among

them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING:

In terms of the Chair, if the Chair finds the term "coverup" offensive,

I withdraw, Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the position in this

Legislature of the Chair. I do categorize the government's action as

highly evasive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was in the House during the last

part of this debate, and the hon. members across the way were rising on

a point of order and the Chairman indicated clearly to the whole of the

House — it was not yourself, sir, at that point in time — that it was a

matter that he had to spend some time on and consider. He stated that

very, very clearly. Then the Chairman had to take the chair as Speaker

to process the message bills, and he is now in the process of

considering. We all understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Further, the Chair will recognize the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), pointing out to all hon. members that

there is a procedure in our standing orders, standing order 37, that

indicates what actions members can take upon a ruling of the Chair when

recognizing a speaker. The Chair has recognized a speaker.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point or order, Mr. Chairman, you have not dealt with the point of

order raised by the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke (Mr. King), which

was this: that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke earlier had the floor.

He was interrupted by a point of order and took his seat to allow the

point of order to proceed. There were other points of order that were

raised. Then the committee rose in order to deal with the introduction

of message bills. We're back into committee now. The points of order

had been put to one side. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is the only

person who had the floor at the interruption of points of order and

should be recognized now, not somebody else, and that's what I think is

an interruption.

Your Honour, Mr. Chairman, you were not

here at the time that was taking place, but that is what in fact took

place, and I think you have to deal with the point of order raised by

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke that legitimately and properly he had

the floor and should be recognized now, with the necessity of resorting

to moving under standing order 37.

MS. BROWN: Further

to that point of order, Mr. Chairman, maybe I can also remind you that

the Chairman who was in the chair at the time requested that the House

allow him some time to contemplate the point and proceed to debate

something else. That permission was not granted. The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, speaking on behalf of the opposition, suggested

that, if the Chairman needed a recess, the House could recess while he

had his deliberations, but no permission was given by the Chair to

permit the debate to cease, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to lose

his place in the debate, while this decision was being made. And, Mr.

Chairman, may I remind you the Chairman told us that any attempt to

disrupt the smooth flow of debate was certainly not part of the role of

the Chairman and certainly was not one that should be tolerated by this

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the committee did

rise on agreement of the House on a motion being put to the committee

and on the committee voting on it. The committee then was called back

on vote 125 and I recognized the first member standing, who was the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour. There is provision in our standing

orders, and the Chair has no alternative but to allow the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour to speak.

MR. HOWARD: He was

not the first member standing; there were three members who rose; the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, all rose

at the same time. But the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke was the person

who had the floor earlier and had relinquished it because of an

interruption by a point of order. You have no choice, in my opinion,

because no other information has been given to you to the contrary, but

to recognize the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke whose place in the

debate was interrupted by points of order. If you do other than that,

Mr. Chairman, then the Chair leaves itself open to being looked upon as

picking and choosing in an unfair way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I will cite to you from

chapter 19, page 406 of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice ,

where it states: "when two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker

calls on the member who, on rising in his place, is first observed by

him." There were four members who rose when the committee was called to

order and vote 125 was called. The first one I observed was the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour, and that member continues on vote 125.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, you can challenge the ruling, but I must find that word

"preposterous" an unparliamentary insult upon the Chair. I would ask

you to withdraw that.

MR. HOWARD: Then we'll delete it.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Speaker, the Chairman in committee on vote 125 recognized the hon.

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and that recognition and

ruling has been challenged.

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

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

[ Page 3817 ]

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS 17

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MR. DAVIS:

I want to specifically address the estimates of the Minister of Human

Resources and, more particularly, I want to spend a few minutes in the

Legislature this morning discussing a problem that I have encountered

in my own riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, which I know also has been

causing difficulties in other parts of the province. It relates to

group homes. It's a question of locating group homes in residential

areas. Often there's a resistance locally to the idea of a group home

for children, with various difficulties they have being established in

the midst of a single family dwelling area. I've run into it recently

in the case of a single-family residence being purchased for the

Ministry of Human Resources by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. It was

bought last fall and the purpose of this purchase became apparent to

residents in the area this spring. They resented the intrusion of an

institution of the group home type in their local community without any

advance notice. In any case, they appealed to the local municipal

council.

The council made inquiries, and only recently have

they been informed that municipal councils in this province are

powerless insofar as the location or zoning of group homes are

concerned. Mr. Chairman, there's a certain amount of confusion not only

in British Columbia but also in other provinces across Canada.

Municipal zoning is municipal and comes under the Municipal Act. The

location of group homes, it now turns out, is provincial in British

Columbia and comes under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

Provided the home is licensed by the proper provincial authorities, it

escapes the zoning provisions of local government. These homes can be

put anywhere: they can be located in single-family dwelling areas,

commercial areas, industrial areas or even in municipal parks — if I

can stretch a point. In other words, local government has no say in

this particular matter. The people living in a single-family dwelling

area have no say whatsoever in this decision-making process.

suppose I can largely blame the NDP for that. The relevant clauses in

the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act — the high-handed clauses

which give the back of the hand to municipal zoning — were introduced

by the previous NDP government in 1974 and 1975. But the Community Care

Facilities Licensing Act, with these added provisions, is now the law

of the land: it takes precedence over the Municipal Act; it places the

onus for the location of group homes squarely on the shoulders of the

provincial government. It says, in effect, that if there is to be any

prior consultation with the local citizenry, it must be undertaken by

the officials of the Ministry of Human Resources, under instruction

from the minister herself.

Ontario has struggled with this

problem. Like British Columbia, Ontario has decided to break up the big

institutions for children. It's preference instead is for group homes,

scattered as much as possible throughout the community. Groups homes

and foster homes are the ideal. This is a policy of

de-institutionalization, which is promoted in the context of community

life, community service and normalization.

Rehabilitation is

obviously the objective. This can best be accomplished by giving these

young people an opportunity to mix with other children of their own age

in circumstances which are as close to our society's norm as possible.

A group home, as I understand it, is a sort of halfway house. It's a

home for children between the ages of 6 and 16. Typically, these homes

may have six, eight or ten children in them; they may be of both sexes.

There will be several staff living in full time, including a cook, a

housekeeper and a social worker or two.

The idea I got from

my North Vancouver–Seymour experience was that it was a one-on-one kind

of thing. In total, there could be as many adults involved as there

were children in a home. However, only two or three adults live in the

home full-time,

whereas the children are there for periods ranging from

three months to several years. It's a managed situation, Mr. Chairman.

However, the children are to be given as much freedom as possible.

Depending on their background and their behaviour, they would be

monitored closely through the day or allowed to go to school and play

with other children, on their own recognizance. Their history, if I can

call it that, would vary considerably. They may have been put upon

badly in their own original homes, or they may have been in trouble of

their own making; either way, they need a change, and this is what they

will be getting in a well-run group home. These children, I am assured,

are not criminals; they've not been sentenced in a court of law. They

are problem children; they may be victims of others' misdeeds or they

may have to change their own way, but there is hope for them. Given the

right kind of supervision and the right kind of environment, there's an

excellent chance that as they grow older they will become useful

members of our society.

Toronto has had a problem with group

homes. There were clusters of them in certain areas. At the same time,

municipalities in other parts of the province and indeed elsewhere in

metropolitan Toronto were refusing to allow group homes anywhere in

their territory — certainly not in areas zoned as single-family

residences. The result in 1978, after the publication of a White Paper,

was a model bylaw. It was developed in close cooperation between the

Ontario equivalent of our Ministry of Human Resources — the office is

the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development — and

[ Page 3818 ]

the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs in Ontario. Basically the suggested urban

bylaw says: "A group home is a single housekeeping unit in a

residential dwelling in which three to ten unrelated residents live as

family, under responsible supervision consistent with the requirements

of its residents. The home is licensed as approved under provincial

statute in compliance with municipal bylaws." So much for the numbers.

The model bylaw goes on to say that any residential dwelling may be

used for a group home, provided that there is no other group home or

similar facility within a distance from the building computed.... And

it goes on to describe a rather complicated formula of distance, which

can vary between municipalities. It goes into some detail, but

essentially it says that group homes must be at least 1,000 feet apart

— in Toronto that's the figure they arrived at — or some other

distance, such as 1,600 feet in the district of Scarborough.

The

problem now in Ontario is that many municipalities are either not

passing a bylaw along these lines — along the lines, in other words,

proposed by the provincial government — or are varying its parameters.

Some, like the city of Toronto, have adopted the bylaw. But they are

few and far between; most others are dragging their feet. Either that

or they have reduced the number of children permitted in the group home

to such a low number — two or four, for example — that the entire

operation becomes inordinately expensive.

So we have a mixed

situation in Ontario. It may not be as awkward administratively as it

has been here, so far, but it still badly needs refinement and a much

closer liaison between their ministry people — the ministry responsible

for human resources — on the one side, and their municipal affairs

ministry and the various individual municipalities on the other.

Mr.

Chairman, I hesitate to make a hard-and-fast recommendation, because I

don't know as much as I would like to know about this subject. But I

can say this. Our B.C. Ministries of Human Resources, Municipal

Affairs, Health, Education and the Attorney-General should get together

on the question of group homes, their definition, spacing, and so on.

They should decide, first and foremost, whether the final act of zoning

should be provincial or municipal. I think it should be local — in

other words, municipal. If this is their conclusion, then they should

at the very least draft a model bylaw which our municipalities can use

when they are locating group homes in their own particular territories.

far as I am concerned, these group homes should be small. They should

be of the same in numbers as a medium-sized to large family in our

typical single-family residential areas. That means less than ten

children; it may mean less than eight; it could mean six, for example.

The

spacing of these homes, one from another, should also be considered.

Half a mile might be the right order of magnitude, at least for a

beginning. The size of lot should also be considered. It should not be

30 feet, 50 feet or even 60 feet. The proximity of recreational, school

and other resources should be considered. This latter consideration was

totally absent in my latest case in North Vancouver–Seymour. I think

it's important that children in a group home have recreation facilities

available to them close by — outlets which can absorb their energies in

the late afternoons, evenings, and on weekends and holidays.

There

should be provision for local area input. The neighbours, in other

words, should have a say in the operation of these homes. They should

at the very least play a monitoring role. If things don't go well, they

should have some way in which they can appeal to the Ministry of Human

Resources, either for a change in management or for the home to be

closed altogether.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should say a

word about a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the question of

group homes, referred to as the Regina v. Bell case. The court ruled,

in effect, that group homes are permitted in all areas designated as

residential by our municipal authorities. The municipality of North

York — that's in the Toronto area — had taken this matter of definition

of a single-family home all the way up through our court system.

Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the municipality of

North York did not have the power to enact a bylaw which defined

families as persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, and also

who could have house guests and servants but not roomers. The court, in

fact, threw out the provision that unrelated people could not share a

rented house or apartment. To put it another way, the Supreme Court of

Canada has said that a municipality can zone land for residential,

commercial, industrial or mixed usage, but it cannot dictate who should

live in a residential property.

This is good news, of

course, for elderly pensioners who want to rent a room so they can keep

their houses. It is good news to students and young workers who want to

share the cost of a rented house or apartment. It's good news, too, for

mentally or physically handicapped adults and children, persons

recovering from illness or addiction and even former prisoners who need

some help and supervision but who want and are able to live together in

a family-type atmosphere.

Ontario's municipalities that have

been resisting the establishment of group homes in residential

neighbourhoods cannot, in terms of the law, do so any longer. The fight

to get all of metro Toronto to adopt a group-home bylaw like that of

Toronto, which allows group homes in every neighbourhood, seems to have

been rendered obsolete by the supreme court's recent ruling.

British

Columbia will have to take this

interpretation of Canadian law into

account. Our government will also have to face the problems of zoning

as they relate to group homes in our municipalities in B.C. I hope our

various ministries can get together on this subject. I also hope that

they will be able to draft a bylaw which they can recommend to our

municipalities, so that there is as much local input in the location of

these homes as possible.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I want

to thank the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour for his attention

today to the question of group homes. It is one that has always been a

contentious one throughout almost every community where they have been

tried to be placed, because, really, in almost every community the

misunderstanding is usually there at the beginning. Balancing that,

however, on the other side of the coin is the fact that once we have

established a group home or group homes in a community, it is

remarkable how few complaints we get.

I'd like to give you

the experience that we have had in that regard and share that with you,

because it's very important to understand, as the member pointed out,

that the deinstitutionalizing of the treatment for youngsters is so

important. Years ago we would build huge edifices — in many cases

youngsters were placed behind bars, many places confined — and

treatment was not actually implemented so

[ Page 3819 ]

much

as incarceration. We've come many, many miles from that point to a

point where we now treat children with emotional problems — or

problems, as the member has so well defined, where they come from very

difficult home situations and they require the kind of love, care and

attention that have to be given by others than their own families.

I'm pleased that you raised the point. It should be very much clarified

in the province, and I would just like to say that our ministry's

objectives have also come a long way since group homes were the answer

to institutionalizing: we've come a long way in refining group homes

per se. We've come a long way in that we agree that they should not be

concentrated in one area. We no longer do that. We really work towards

not making a concentration, because that would not be a model

community. What we really want most for the children is a model

community — one where they can get the support from the community at

large, i.e. the school, the church, the recreational facilities — yet

one with an ordinary neighbourhood community atmosphere and one where

they would get the one-to-one attention that was drawn to our attention

here today by the member.

We have made a rule that we will

keep the group homes small. Although they may be licensed for eight

children, experience has shown that only five or six full-time

residents are in residence at any given time, except for very unusual

peak periods; for a home licence for eight children, the average

residency is usually approximately six.

I also want to agree

with the member that neighbours should at all times be taken into

confidence from the very beginning on where a group home is to be

placed.

One of the criteria that we've always had in these

past few years in this province in establishing group homes is that we

don't remove a child from his neighbourhood, unless that is part of the

treatment itself. If part of the treatment is to remove the child from

the place where he may have got into trouble, then there is a

therapeutic reason for removing the child to another community.

However, if the child has some grandparents and uncles and aunts and

real ties and commitment in the area and if that child has a very good

possibility.... I may suggest to you that we have proven that that

child can be returned to his natural parents in that community in most

cases, and in the tragic cases where that doesn't happen, we make other

arrangements, but in most cases we'd like them to remain in the

community.

For those who say that we're, in their words,

"imposing" a group home on a community.... I've heard all the reasons:

lowering the property values, imposing "a concentrated, large family,"

if you like, in an area where there may be residences of smaller

numbers, and so on. I appreciate that the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour is not making those points, but if they are valid in

the minds of those who make them, we must also balance that and ensure

that neighbourhood that they too have a responsibility — we all have,

as citizens of British Columbia — to encompass that child in the

community. The community itself must enshrine that child with the kind

of attention and love in his or her own community.... It's not good

enough that we should shunt them off, saying: "Oh, there is some other

community; it's not our problem." Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it is

their problem; it's the problem of all of us and the problem is right

at the local community. Whether it be right in the actual home, or

influences on that home or influences in the community, it is right

there on their doorstep and that is where it must remain to be solved.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

But

I think there is a positive answer in our experience. I'd like to say

that we have come a long way. It has been a constructive evolution —

and remember, that's really what it is. We're trying different things

and different ways to meet the problems of raising children and the

problems of children who have been abused or neglected in modern-day

society. It is not an easy question. Each and every individual child

is. another individual and a special case and cannot be treated with a

blanket statement. That's why different kinds of group homes are in our

province and why we try to find different kinds of special people to

attempt to answer some of the problems which face these youngsters.

like your idea of better communications with the neighbours. The case

that you present to us from North Vancouver–Seymour arose, I think,

because of the aggressiveness of the people who recognized the need for

a group home in tying down and acquiring a piece of property and then

proceeding to tell the neighbourhood. I think that's a little bit of

the cart-before-the-horse approach. Without sacrificing the need for

the ministry to get the best deal in terms of acquisition of property,

I think there should be a lot more kinds of communication, and I would

certainly take that as a very constructive criticism of how things have

been handled — in some cases very well and in other cases a little

limited in communication. It inflames tempers and the judgment of

people when, all of a sudden, thrust within their midst is a complete

change in what their community has been. I really take that as very

constructive criticism, and I'd certainly like to address that.

Again

may I emphasize that our general experience has been that after they've

been established, there are very, very few complaints. It's amazing. We

must give credit to the people of British Columbia. They do embrace the

youngsters in the group homes. They do sort of start to even help. Just

last weekend I visited a group home for handicapped teenagers. It was

interesting that at first the community was just a little reluctant.

They didn't know if they wanted to have this very different home — not

just your average family home — move in. It's a teenage handicapped

home. The teenagers living there happily ensconced are teenagers in

wheelchairs. They have full-time care in the house. It's an incredible

facility and an exciting concept. It gets those young teenagers out of

an institution and provides just exactly what we would want for them.

We should be proud of that kind of facility.

The experience

was interesting, because the neighbourhood, at first, was just a little

reluctant — not in a very public way, but there was the odd thing said

and there were little indications. It's strange they had a meeting and

had the communications that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is

suggesting and all of a sudden that neighbourhood is rising to the

challenges. They helped when the building was going on and those

special ramps and special accesses for wheelchairs were being built.

They were pitching in and lending their assistance and expertise, and

now that they have become a home, those little exchanges that we all do

in terms of moving into a new neighbourhood have taken place and that

nice kind of communication with the neighbourhood has taken place.

it happens, and it's interesting to know. May I just say that on every

occasion after the group home is established our people of British

Columbia respond and really act very well,

[ Page 3820 ]

and

in response volunteer their time and become very good neighbours. The

general experience is that no problems come to our attention once the

home is established. The appeal, if there is to be an appeal situation,

would come, I think, directly to me or to our ministry. I would think

that such a complaint.... I would just give you an example of one.

have had an empty group home of recent months, because the need has not

been established in the recent months. Unfortunately, just the physical

appearance of the house has been less than satisfactory, but for a very

good reason. The neighbours, knowing that it's a government-purchased

home, have been concerned, and we have overcome that. But that really

is the only complaint that I've received, other than the complaints

I've received prior to putting in group homes. After they've been

established, that's the only complaint I've received, and I'm sure that

I would get the complaints. So I'm not so sure that we need an appeal

situation. The appeal is always directly to the Ministry of Human

Resources, and it can be taken care of there. There can always be an

appeal to the minister.

I agree that the neighbours should

have a very real opportunity for input to the planning for group homes.

I'd like to involve them more than on an appeal situation. I'd like to

involve them more on an ongoing advisory council. I really like that

idea and I'd like to pursue that with the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Seymour. I think there's great value in that. I'd be pleased

to have the Ministry of Municipal Affairs work with the Ministry of

Human Resources to study the idea of a model bylaw. On first reaction,

I have to say that if we can, without putting into statutes — either at

the local or provincial level — any kind of enforcement sort of thing,

I think I would prefer to do it so that we really do have that real

neighbourhood input. I think if we could try that first and then

simultaneously do a study of those other model bylaws particularly the

one you mention in Ontario, and see what their experience has been, I'd

be pleased to look into it. But I think I'd really like to try that

voluntary... which I suggest to you is working quite well. I'd like to

assure those people in North Vancouver–Seymour, who are at this very

moment struggling with decision-making on a group home, that they will

certainly have continued and ongoing input regarding the group home

that we hope to establish in North Vancouver–Seymour.

May I

say that one of the very first meetings that I attended as Minister of

Human Resources was one with all of the community representatives in

North Vancouver. That goes back about a year and a half now. They were

very clear then that we needed more facilities for young people. So

that was their plea on the one side. We needed more facilities, and the

group-living situation is an answer to that. I know that they would be

just as keen to have that established. I thank the member for those

concerns, and I would certainly be pleased to work with him on this

ongoing advisory council and also on the subject of a bylaw study with

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

members, the question has arisen in committee as to what scope of

debate is permissible under vote 125, presently before the committee.

The

function of the committee is to determine whether or not certain sums

of money asked for by the Crown shall be voted. In response to this

request, the committee is entitled to fully inquire into the

administrative actions of the particular minister on behalf of whose

ministry moneys have been requested.

The obvious problem

confronting the committee is that no sums are identified in the

estimates for the office of Deputy Premier. The point has been made

that the position of Deputy Premier is analogous to that of an acting

minister, as provided for by sections 11 and 12 of the Constitution

Act. I will not read the entire sections 11 and 12, but I will point

out in

section 11(1): "Any of the powers and duties assigned by law to

any of the officials constituting the Executive Council may by order in

council be assigned and transferred for any period to any other of the

officials." It then goes on with four other sections, as well as

section 12, dealing with acting ministers.

It must be

self-evident that a deputy normally functions in that capacity only in

the absence of the individual for whom he deputizes.

It is

the opinion of the Chair that debate in Committee of Supply, when the

vote of the Minister of Human Resources is under consideration, must of

necessity be limited to the administrative actions of the Minister of

Human Resources, except insofar as that minister on specific,

identifiable occasions may have taken administrative action in the

absence of the Premier, or on such occasion as the minister was

demonstrably designated by the Premier to act on his behalf with

respect to a specific matter.

If debate of administrative

actions by the minister as Deputy Premier were not allowed, the

committee would improperly be denied an opportunity to canvass those

actions. Such debate must, however, be within the limits indicated,

namely that the minister was demonstrably acting specifically in her

capacity as Deputy Premier. If such a proper basis has not been

established for a particular line of inquiry, the Chair must intervene

in the interest of orderly debate. To hold otherwise could clearly lead

to a full repetition of any and all matters already debated under the

vote of the Premier. It is a fundamental rule of procedure and practice

that the House does not embark upon a second debate of a matter already

canvassed.

I hope that in some regard this will be of

assistance to members in identifying the areas of debate where some

guidance from the Chair has been sought.

MR. LEA: On

a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this makes the job in the past almost

impossible, because there is no way that the public of the province or

the opposition would have any way of knowing those times that the

minister is designated by the Premier. Up until now it has been a

designation that was all-inclusive — Deputy Premier all the time. Now

we find out by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is only the

Deputy Premier from time to time. As the minister said, it is very,

very seldom.

So we now find out that we do not have a

full-time Deputy Premier in the province. I would like to ask the

Chair's guidance as to whether or not there should be a written

communication to the official opposition, and possibly to the public,

any time that the Premier so designates. It doesn't necessarily have to

be this minister, obviously. Most of the time, if your ruling is

correct, we have no Deputy Premier. There would have to be some way of

the Premier letting the people of the province know when indeed he is

not acting as the Premier as such, and that a Deputy Premier has been

designated.

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

[ Page

3821 ]

door of this minister, from the designation of

seats in this House and from the letterhead on her stationery. There

has to be a clear definition if this is to be the ruling. I would ask

that you bring back a ruling as to whether or not this minister should

be allowed to designate herself Deputy Premier on stationery, in the

House and on the door of her office, when she has not been so

designated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the request

goes well beyond the scope and authority of the Chair. However, on the

member's point, it is clearly within the prerogative of a member,

during estimates, to ask and inquire as to whether any specific action

was done at that time. Other than that, the Chair is bound to obey and

enforce the rules of the House, but it does not preclude a member from

asking whether or not at any particular time any particular action did

fall within that scope.

MR. LEA: That's an impossible

task for us, Mr. Chairman, and it's an impossible task for the public.

We have now found out that over the course of the last four and a half

years, for the majority of the time — 99 percent of the time — this

minister was not the Deputy Premier; she had not been designated Deputy

Premier. An impossible ruse has been played on the people of this

province, as far as I am concerned. We now know that we do not have a

Deputy Premier in this province. That leaves us in the impossible

situation in estimates of trying to sort out the time that she was

Deputy Premier and the time that she wasn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

While the Chair may be sympathetic to the request of the member, the

Chair is powerless to do other than to enforce our standing rules and

the traditions of this parliament. I have tried to bring back to

members some guidance which would allow them some flexibility and

guidance in questioning. Other than that, hon. members, the Chair is

certainly powerless to carry out the requests or wishes indicated by

the member.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I think you

have left the opposition and the whole House with a dilemma. If we

accept the statement and your

interpretation of the rules of the House,

then I think perhaps the validity of the trade and convention centre

legislation has to be questioned as to its legitimacy. A bill was

brought before this House by the Deputy Premier. If we follow and

accept your

interpretation of the standing rules, that bill should

never have been brought before the House and it could be challenged as

to its legality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, the point of

order is received by the Chair, but it certainly goes well beyond the

scope and authority of the Chair to comment on that point of order.

That again will be something that will be determined in a theatre other

than the one presently before us.

On the same point of order, the Deputy Premier.

MR. LEA: How do you know?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refer to the

points of order that have just been made by the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) and by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). One

said that it would be impossible for the opposition to ascertain when

the Deputy Premier was acting specifically for the Premier, I believe

you said in the ruling you just made. Then the member for Burnaby North

followed by saying that it was a dilemma because, looking at the bill

that is before the House under the name of the Deputy Premier.... That

was in question now. Well, on the last point, may I just ease the

member's mind; I know it is of great concern to her. That was very

specifically established — acting specifically for the Premier in that

regard — and therefore it falls within the ruling, so we shouldn't have

to waste the House's time on that.

In regard to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I take it.... I'd

like to help with it, because it's really been the basis of the

discussion over my estimates. I need that kind of assistance from the

Chair. The reason I said that I think it would be difficult for me to

do something that wasn't done under the former administration.... As I

understand it, when there was a Deputy Premier designated and sworn in

by the Lieutenant-Governor, along with the Minister of Education, in

the former administration.... It was never debated in this House. So

this is unusual and new.

I sympathize with the Chair as well

as with the opposition in trying to say which question should be asked.

But I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that I have no difficulty answering

questions on any of the responsibilities I have taken on for the

government of the province of British Columbia. But I also suggest to

you, Mr. Chairman, that if we follow the line of questioning the

opposition has tried to pursue.... There is no question that I should

have to be responsible for answering questions which are not within the

responsibility of my ministry. It would be difficult; it would be going

through the total line of questioning; it would mean that I would have

to go through all of the Premier's estimates, which he very adequately

goes through on his own.

Mr. Chairman, I really seek counsel

from you in that regard, if you would like this debate to continue. If

it eases the atmosphere in the House in any way, please know that to

the best of my ability, and with your ruling in mind that a proper

basis be established for when I am acting specifically in that role, I

would be happy to answer anything.

MR. HOWARD: What

effectively has happened now is that the Deputy Premier, as a result of

your ruling, is able to be selective as to whether or not she wants to

deal with something that's posed to her in her capacity as Deputy

Premier. It leaves the entire choice and discretion in her hands and in

her mind as to whether she even wants to deal with the subject matter

that might be raised in her capacity and her activity as Deputy

Premier, which is continuous. She can stonewall any way she feels like.

That type of activity, that type of possibility, I think, militates

against the desirability of full, free debate here.

For

instance, as an example, can the minister tell us whether she was

Deputy Premier on September 14, 1979? I would like to ask her a

question with respect to that. I obviously can't if I don't know that

she was Deputy Premier on that day. Can she tell the committee that?

She doesn't know. She doesn't remember.

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

MR. HOWARD:

The answer is she doesn't know, obviously. She said that yesterday. We

went through a similar process. She said: "I don't remember." That

selective memory is designed to do nothing else but to prevent the

[ Page

3822 ]

people of this province knowing through their

elected representatives in the Legislature what kind of dirty tricks

the deputy premier is up to. That's what the result is.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point of order is made very well by the member. Again, hon.

members, while we are free to ask questions at any time in committee,

there is nothing that says that an answer must be given, whether it be

in this case or in other cases where there is a clear delineation of

administrative responsibility. It is simply not fair to leave the Chair

in a position when that responsibility, both for questioning and

answering, must be taken by members of the House, and I want to assure

members of this House that the Chair is not going to run any kind of

interference or flack for either the government or for the opposition.

It is the responsibility of members of this House in committee to

debate and to get answers on those matters. I have given some guidance,

guidance that's the best we can possibly come up with at this time,

based on the precedents of this House. I would ask all hon. members to

give that guidance their due consideration in debate. That at no time

precludes any member of this House from asking a question. Whether or

not the question would be deemed to be in order would be dependent upon

the answer the Chair receives from an hon. member. But it is not for

the Chair to determine, nor will it be for the Chair to determine,

where a specific area would so fall.

Interjection.

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

MS. BROWN:

On the same point of order, I think that what your counsel has done

is.... The import of your decision is that now the Premier has to file

with this House the dates of every occasion on which he designated the

Deputy Premier to act on his behalf.

MR. KING: By order-in-council.

MS. BROWN:

It has to be filed with this House. That is the only way that the

Legislature and all of the people of British Columbia will know when

the Deputy Premier is indeed acting as Deputy Premier.

The other question I'd like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is that having

been sworn in as the Deputy Premier of the province, how can the

Speaker then rule that, in fact, she is only the Deputy Premier on

those occasions when the Premier designated her to be the Deputy

Premier? Funds have been spent to put a plaque on the door, a rug on

the floor and state letterhead on the stationery. If that has occurred,

then certainly holding this minister accountable in terms of her role

and her position as Deputy Premier is one of the responsibilities of

this Legislature. That is a responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. Are we still on points of order, hon. member?

The second member for Surrey on a point of order. One moment, hon.

member, is the member for Dewdney also on a point of order?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, I am.

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

MR. HALL:

The point of order I wish to raise comes from the point of order that

was addressed by the minister herself. In your ruling, and for future

behaviour of the committee, the minister said that she was sworn in as

Deputy Premier and referred to the fact that that had also taken place

with the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I know that that

didn't take place in the case of the member for Burnaby North. The

member for Burnaby North was sworn in as the Minister of Education, and

continued to hold that portfolio until 1975.

The

administration between 1972 and 1975 certainly did not swear anybody

into the position of Deputy Premier. I'd like you, Mr. Chairman, to

satisfy yourself as to whether indeed the person currently claiming to

be the Deputy Premier has in fact been sworn in as Deputy Premier. That

makes a difference as to whether or not the committee pursues this line

of questioning. If indeed the member was sworn in as the Deputy Premier

of this province, then I think all the questions are in order. If she

was not, then I share your discomfort in dealing with this — and her

discomfort. The bill would therefore be somewhat imperfect, I think,

although that would be a matter for some determination by people more

learned in law then I.

I certainly think the fact that the

minister claims that she has been sworn in as Deputy Deputy has some

bearing upon your ruling. It would have some bearing on my conduct in

examination of this member's activities over the past while. I think

that should be ascertained as soon as possible.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, there have been many times when I could have entered into

the debate on the points of order, but I thought that so trivial a

matter would have gradually fallen by the wayside. It is of absolutely

no consequence. Neither is it worthy of debate in this House or of your

place of," and that's all. But in the case of the Deputy Premier it is

a permanent position authorized by the Premier. The Deputy Premier is

to be in place of the Premier whenever the Premier should so choose, to

give him latitude to move at will. An analogous situation, of course,

is when a minister leaves the province and by order-in-council

designates a person in his place — that's a deputy. I do not understand

how we can enter into these semantics. The minister has answered all

the questions that have been asked. I appeal to the House to let us get

on with our business. It's such a simple, trivial matter. We do no good

to either side of the House occupying our time in this frivolous debate.

MR. LORIMER:

On the same point of order, I would point out that we know the Deputy

Premier was appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor, the representative of

the Queen. Now we hear that she is only the Deputy Premier on certain

days, and we're not really clear what days those are.

would like to pose a question to Mr. Speaker; maybe you can clarify the

matter over the weekend — you might be able to consider it. We have a

bill — Bill 23 — called the Trade and Convention Centre Act, presented

by the Deputy Premier. We had second reading some weeks ago. Now I want

to know whether on that particular day when we had second reading the

minister in charge was, in fact, the Deputy Premier on that particular

day. Because if not, it would seem to me that we might have to go

through second reading

[ Page 3823 ]

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, I could briefly attempt to answer at this particular

moment the questions posed by the members. But I will reserve that over

the weekend.

Again, I must not hesitate to point out that it

is a fundamental rule of procedure and practice of the House that the

House does not embark upon a second debate of a matter already

canvassed. That is one of the prime and guiding rules of this and all

Commonwealth legislatures.

MR. BARBER: The official

opposition believes that the subjects of autism, and the difficulties

of organizing group homes that are welcome in neighbourhoods, are

important. We also believe that the credibility, honour and public

reputation of ministers and of the government are important.

For

the first part of the debate which we have been proposing to lead on

this estimate, we are dealing with the issue of the credibility, or the

lack of it; the integrity, or the lack of it; the public respect, or

the lack of it, of the government occasionally headed by the Deputy

Premier.

The office of Deputy Premier used to be taken

seriously in this province, but after today it won't be, because we now

learn that we don't actually have a Deputy Premier except for a few

minutes from time to time when the Premier is in Seattle, Japan or

other places.

The office of the Deputy Premier has been

taken down a few notches by the Chairman today. I'm sure that comes as

no pleasant surprise at all to the Deputy Premier, who thought she was

the real Deputy Premier and now learns that she's only occasionally the

Deputy Premier. One wonders whether or not we will now see put on the

door, and removed from time to time, the little sign that says "Deputy

Premier," and "Deputy Premier" taken off the stationery and put back on

again.

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

"Deputy

Premier, Grace McCarthy" — you'll know that this is when the Premier

was out of the country — "said that the Social Credit Lettergate

scandal is finished, and she is angry about stories which suggest the

resignation of researcher Jack Kelly is just the tip of the iceberg.

McCarthy said Thursday that media suggestions that the dirty tricks

campaign reflect on her office are 'foolishness' and added that

reporters who continue to pursue the matter are 'sick'. "

She

offered a similarly high opinion of a Channel 8 reporter yesterday in

the corridor, and we had the pleasure of watching that last night on

the news. Apparently anyone who disagrees with the political aims of

the occasional Deputy Premier is "sick."

I would remind the

committee that the people of British Columbia well remember the

integrity of a claim made by that person a few years ago when she — for

whatever motives — invented, fabricated, created out of whole cloth, an

utterly false story about a so-called secret police force that had been

created — she alleged without a single shred of evidence to support it

— by the then New Democrat administration of this province.

Now the credibility of this minister is an important concern for people who have memories. Fortunately for this Parliament

the official opposition has a long memory — a very long memory. We

recall what that minister invented out of whole cloth when she

pretended, in a way that could not be substantiated with a single fact,

that the Barrett administration had created a secret police force in

British Columbia. She alleged that it had been armed with high-powered

rifles and provided with high-powered cars, and further alleged,

without a single factual piece of evidence to back it up, that vast

warehouses had been created to house the bullets and bombs allegedly

granted to this nonexistent secret police force.

Now the

same Deputy Premier — who occasionally acts as Deputy Premier, we're

now informed — accused reporters of being "sick" for having the nerve

to ask on what factual basis she claimed that she knew nothing about

dirty tricks, knew nothing about Mr. Lenko's good works for Social

Credit, and knew nothing about every other aspect of the scandals that

have plagued this administration for almost a year.

Interjections.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

There are a lot of interruptions here, hon. members. Please, could we

have quiet in the House? The hon. first member for Victoria continues.

MR. BARBER:

Now the reporters had the common sense to remember the total nonsense

created for political purposes by that person when she invented a

secret police force that did not exist at any time in the history of

this province. They therefore had the good judgment to ask a few

penetrating questions, and especially to ask that she offer some

evidence, some factual basis, for her claims of blissful innocence in

the whole dirty tricks affair. Well, no wonder the reporters were

pressing her a bit to offer facts, because, in fact, all she'd done

before was simply invent, for malicious political purposes, a phony

story about a secret police force that never did exist.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, at this point I still have to maintain the relevancy rule;

we have decided in the committee what is relevant. The member did begin

debate on a relevant item, one that falls within the Chairman's ruling

as to the administrative actions of the Deputy Premier while the

Premier was away.

The member now seems to be straying from

the relevance of the vote before us. I would ask the hon. member, in

the tradition of this House, to come back to the vote before us and the

administrative actions of the Minister of Human Resources and her

capacity and administrative actions when she is Deputy Premier.

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

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Well, we have to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

That's not a point of order. I have to recognize the first member for

Victoria, who still maintains the floor and, of course, who can ask any

question he wishes

[ Page 3824 ]

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

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

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

MR. BARBER:

I hesitate to ask the occasional Deputy Premier if she is the Deputy

Premier today, because she might not remember. She has a problem

remembering what she did or did not do, who she did or did not meet,

and what instructions she did or did not give in regard to a number of

issues.

Now we know that the Deputy Premier has been

severely chastised by her own colleagues. I'll name them by their

surnames because they hold different positions currently.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps you would refer to hon. members in the tradition of the House —

either by the riding they represent or the portfolio they hold.

MR. BARBER:

Well, by riding then. Indeed, that's very easy — the member for

Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm). Each of them was profoundly critical of the ridiculous

and inept way in which the occasional Deputy Premier handled the dirty

tricks.... Shall I say "coverup" or is that unparliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER:

I withdraw that. ...handled the dirty tricks elaborate explanations, no

matter how self-contradictory or how often altered, offered by Social

Credit from time to time to excuse away what everyone in the province

knows darned well they did during the last campaign and perhaps during

other campaigns as well. I'm interested in the opinion of the

occasional Deputy Premier about the remarks made by the member for

Kamloops and the first member for Surrey, who were damning in their

indictment of her ineptness, bungling and mishandling of the dirty

tricks explanations.

Let me read from the Vancouver Sun

dated November 17, 1979. I confess that I don't know if she was

occasionally the Deputy Premier on that day or not, but nonetheless we

would welcome her opinion.

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

MR. BARBER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. According to the Vancouver Sun ,

which the minister may also think is sick for having the nerve to print

these things, the member for Kamloops, then the Minister of

Environment, said:

"'I think if you look at the enormity of the offence itself, which, on

a scale from zero to ten, is probably around three or four, and consider that

it is still going on now, a couple of months after the matter came to light,

I think you have to question whether we, as a party, handled this thing particularly

brilliantly.' Mair said: 'Obviously we would not be in the same situation

we are now if it had been well handled.' "

Who

was doing the handling at the time? It was the occasional Deputy

Premier. What does that say about her ability as Deputy Premier to

speak for the government which she occasionally deputizes as Premier

for, although we don't quite know when, but maybe we'll find out if the

Premier bothers to tell us or her. It seems to us that one of the

reasons why Social Credit, apart from being a coalition of much

opportunity and no principle, is in so much trouble in this province is

because the Deputy Premier panicked in September and October of last

year. She panicked when faced with the gradual unravelling of a whole

amazing story of deliberately, deceptively, determinedly planned

schemes and efforts by Social Credit to win the last election under

false pretences. They did so — the Deputy Premier might be interested

in commenting on this if she has time today to do so; she will

certainly have time on Monday — by concocting phony baloney letters, by

handing out thousand-dollar bills and doing a lot of other things which

the Deputy Premier, if she was Deputy Premier then, might have been

told about, but about which, if she was not Deputy Premier, she would

surely not have known anything.

This government is in

trouble today and has been in the midst of a scandal for almost a year

running without letup because, in part, of the incompetence and the

bungling of the Deputy Premier. We have all this on the authority of

the first member for Surrey and the last member for Kamloops.

Now

the Premier himself — was he the Premier that day? — said that he

wasn't very satisfied either with the fashion in which it had been

handled during his absence. Who was doing the handling during his

absence, Mr. Chairman? It was the occasional Deputy Premier. What was

she doing? Well, she was telling us the reporters who asked these

questions were sick; they had no right to pursue these things. What

nerve! Imagine — asking her to provide facts! Why didn't they take her

on her word that there was a secret police force? Just because there

was no reason they shouldn't disbelieve her, just because she had no

facts to offer was no reason to discredit her; just because there were

no warehouses, there were no brown shirts, there were no bullets, there

were no rifles, was no reason to call into question the word of the

Deputy Premier, when occasionally she acted as such.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Or cover up.

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

But

the people of British Columbia know for themselves, because they have

good judgment and common sense, what was really going on during those

desperate months in the fall when Social Credit was desperately trying

to explain its peculiar actions. The Deputy Premier was so desperate

that she phoned the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — it is alleged — a

dozen times in the space of one 24-hour period to instruct poor old

Jack about who to fire from the Social Credit caucus.

[ Page 3825 ]

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

MR. BARBER: From one of your former associates.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. One moment, hon. member. Will all hon. members please

come to order. There is a great deal of side conversation going on. The

Chair cannot permit interruptions of the speaker, out of courtesy for

our parliament. The hon. first member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the point of order I want to raise

with you relates, I think, to standing order 20. If you find disorder

in the House, you are required to deal with it. The member for Omineca

is again today the persistent interrupter — from his seat — of the

proceedings. I think that if the Chair would just take the occasion

once to toss him out of the House on his ear, he'd learn to behave

himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot accept that

point of order. The Chair is quite aware of standing order 20; the

Chair is also aware of Sir Erskine May's comments about interruptions

in the House. At the point when I made that ruling, I quite clearly

heard interruptions. People were interrupting the hon. first member for

Victoria from both sides of the House, and that is why I raised my

gavel and brought that to the attention of the House.

MR. BARBER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In any case, the voters will toss out the

member for Omineca at the next election, so one way or another....

Interjections.

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

MR. BARBER:

I want to talk about the solicitous way in which the Deputy Premier —

who occasionally acts as such — was concerned about the well-being of

Ellen McKay at one particular point. This apparently was one of her

administrative responsibilities, because we learn from the Vancouver Sun

— a reliable journal — that she confirmed during an interview that she

had been asking around the Legislature for a way to contact Ms. McKay

before she returned to this country. When pressed by the press, she

said: "Why not?" — repeating the question several times — "I have

attempted to reach her number in order that the caucus chairman, Mr.

Kempf, can communicate with her."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, one moment, please. In spite of the fact that you're reading

from a paper, it is courteous to refer to a member in the House by his

riding.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continue, hon. member.

MR. BARBER:

Now she may or may not have been acting as Deputy Premier, but we can

presume that she was at least acting as Minister of Human Resources —

the numero uno social worker of the province — concerned about the

health of poor Ms. McKay; maybe that was her motive. So I'm further

interested as to why she took it upon herself, as occasional Deputy

Premier, to make it one of her administrative duties to try and get the

phone number of Ellen McKay on behalf of the — as it turns out —

surprised member for Omineca. It was a charitable thing; maybe she was

just playing social worker as Minister of Human Resources. Or maybe she

was the Deputy Premier on that day — or both.

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

'Why not?' she asked, repeating the question several times. 'I have

attempted to reach her number in order that the caucus chairman, Mr.

Kempf, can communicate with her. I have talked to the caucus chairman.

Why not? I want Mr. Kempf to be as prepared as he can.'" Apparently she

didn't trust him to be prepared on his own resources; she had to do it

for him.

She continues: '' 'It would be unfair to McKay if

she stepped off an airplane and ran into one of your television

cameras,' she said, pointing at a television reporter."

MR. LEA: It didn't bother McGeer.

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

Let

me continue with this excellent quote from the past. "Asked why she was

spending her time on such a task," — apparently, I interpolate, she

made it one of her administrative duties, as occasional Deputy Premier

— "McCarthy replied, 'Kempf is in Houston and unable to do his own

digging into McKay's whereabouts.' "

They have no telephones

in Houston? This is news to B.C. Tel. I checked a little while ago.

They have telephones there, unless the mad member for Omineca ripped

them all out that week; I doubt that he did.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Please, hon. members for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and North Peace River

(Mr. Brummet), I must caution you that you cannot interrupt a member

when he is speaking.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I

continue with this wonderful story. " 'The reporters' questions,' she

said, 'were just incredible.' " Here she goes again. " 'I really don't

understand. Are you somehow insinuating that I should have no contact

with the caucus chairman?' However, McCarthy's efforts on his behalf

came as a surprise to Mr. Kempf, reached by telephone in Houston."

Maybe

they only have one-way phones in Houston; you can phone in but you

can't phone out. Perhaps the member hasn't paid his bills and he

couldn't phone out; but the Vancouver Sun or the occasional Deputy Premier could phone in.

One

wonders what the motive was of the occasional Deputy Premier to search

out Ellen McKay. I hope we find out on Monday. In the meantime, I move

the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 3826 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada