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, MARCH 7, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1323 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Administration of Justice.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1323

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1323

Routine proceedings

Speech from the Throne.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1323

Mr. Lorimer –– 1325

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1327

Ms. Brown –– 1331

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1332

Mr. Barber –– 1335

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1339

Ministerial statement

Administration of justice.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1339

Mr. Macdonald –– 1340

FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is all too seldom that I have

guests in the chamber from the great constituency of Chilliwack —

particularly on a Friday morning, because it takes four and a half

hours to get here. Seated in the gallery today are the president and

several of the directors of the East Chilliwack Cooperative

Association. I would like the members to make them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to

welcome some visitors from the north end of the Island: the chairman of

the Comox-Strathcona Regional District, Mr. Keith Hudson; a director

and alderman for Campbell River, Joan Stephens, and the administrator

for the regional district, Wayne d'Easum.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in welcoming a

member of another place, the recently reelected Member of Parliament

for Waterloo, Mr. Walter McLean. He is a native Victorian, and is in

the gallery opposite.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, from time to time we get the

opportunity to give credit to our staff in the ridings, particularly

our secretaries: I would like to welcome my riding secretary, Dawn

Black, and her sons, David, Matthew and Stewart Black, who are sitting

in the gallery.

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

Leave granted.

CBC REPORT ON FAVOURITISM

IN ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on television last night there

was a story of very grave import. The story on CBC television said two

things: first, that there had been favouritism in the justice system;

that justice had been administered partially and not impartially in

some cases. No more serious allegations could be made, for, if they are

true, public confidence in the entire system of law and order breaks

down.

The other thing it said was that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams) had been apprised by letter of some part of this at least.

There is, in any case, a close relationship of mutual responsibility

between a minister and his deputy. The allegations necessarily

therefore involved the office of the Attorney-General as well. The

truth or otherwise of this kind of interference with justice must be

established.

Attorneys-General, former and present, cannot investigate their own

offices. We believe that the right thing would be for the present and

former Attorneys-General to stand down from their ministerial offices

while the truth of the matter is ascertained. The federal Minister of

Justice should be involved, and we would like some members of the

opposition to be part of the discussions as to procedures.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in responding I would like to

say that the allegations viewed on television by many British

Columbians were serious indeed in nature. The Attorney-General has

taken the opportunity now, not having seen the program last night, to

review the allegations and to conduct his review. A statement, I'm

sure, will be forthcoming very, very shortly.

I say to all members of this House that the government is concerned

about the administration of justice in this province, as are all

members and all citizens, and we too look forward to a full, frank and

complete statement on this matter.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yesterday we were having a little fun. If

you'll recall, there were constant challenges from the members opposite

with respect to the leadership. If I may refer to some of the earlier

comments I made, the Premier, with respect to certain difficulties

which have been encountered, stood up in early November and made it

abundantly clear to all British Columbians that, "as leader of this

party, I accept without hesitation responsibility for those acts."

That's a clear, unequivocal statement, and the record speaks for itself.

With respect to leadership, I made some comments with respect to the

opposition. I recall well a number of things that occurred in 1975. For

those members opposite who are prepared to challenge that, I think the

record there speaks for itself as well. I made reference to daylight

saving, and we all remember it being on again, off again.

I remember what happened to the former Minister of Mines just before

the election. He dumped the Minister of Mines and came back and

immediately said: "A quick review of taxes and royalties has been

promised."

I think we have to make reference also to the then Minister of

Finance: he'd been canned as well. I think the Leader of the Opposition

then began to realize....

I think these points are important. When somebody is prepared to

challenge the leadership of others, l think perhaps it's healthy to

review the record.

I remember also the comments which were made during 1975. I thought

it was a great statement that the Leader of the Opposition made. He

said: "The government fired me, and the people hired me." That's a

matter of record. It's a good statement. But let's not any of us forget

that in 1975 we gave him his notice, and in 1979 the same story was

told again.

We remember well what happened in the forest industry when the

opposition members felt it was best that they go into business for

themselves. The general feeling was that given enough time, the

government would be the only one in that business.

Even the members opposite, and their own party, and their most

famous leader — or one of their most famous leaders — came up and said:

"I've realized it's possible to plan an economy without owning it."

That's a significant statement; "I've realized that it's possible to

plan an economy without owning it." The author of that statement was

T.C. Douglas. You know, Mr. Douglas also said something else which I

thought was important as well, with respect

[ Page 1324 ]

to the economy. He said: "Canadians do not want to

escape from big business only to fall into the clutches of big

government." I think that's a significant statement as well, and it's

something which we believe in.

I mentioned yesterday the significance of resources, and what the

Fathers of Confederation said, and how the constitution was structured,

and the fact that natural resources, in fact, were the property of the

provinces. Leadership has been shown, Mr. Speaker, by our Premier. He

felt very strongly about this and led the way for the four western

provinces. He made his mark, and he made it well. In the election in

1979 the people spoke, and he received his mandate, and it was based on

resource control.

You know, I often wondered what happened with the handling of the

budget in the previous years, and the expenditure of funds, and those

funds which were spent long before they were secured. It seems to me

that the members opposite spend the money and then go out and find

where it's going to come from. Their view of economic planning is that

you decide what you want to spend and then extract it from the

taxpayer. We take exactly the opposite view; the ends which we have may

be the same but it's the manner in which we travel. The statement from

the Labour government in Great Britain which I mentioned yesterday said

this: "There's only one way in which we can provide the social benefits

to everybody, and that is through a well-planned economy with a strong

resource base." That's what we're doing. That's first and that's our

plan.

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

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

I was most interested in and humoured by the speech of the member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) because he kept making reference

to the government not having a plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Smile when you say that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I couldn't smile because I had this in

front of me, Mr. Member. "From the view of economic planning," I said,

"you decide what you want and spend what you can extract from the

taxpayer."

Here I find a statement by the hon. member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam. I understand that the statement put to him

was: "It was" — his government — "like a house of casual pleasure run

by the girls." I thought that was a rather strong statement. But the

member's response was this: "The government never had a blueprint for

office." Do you remember making that statement? "It lacked one when it

took office and failed to develop one subsequently. Our basic interests

and ideas were right, but the needed refinement of them never occurred.

Effective management was lacking. Anyway, you can't advance on a broad

number of fronts — we did — and maintain a blueprint."

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

Interjection.

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

MR. LEVI: Cite the quote.

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There is another item which I would like

to raise — this came as a bit of a shock to me. It involved health

services and hospital planning. It was out in the last election — my

introduction as a candidate in a provincial election. I have to tell

you that it bothered me a great deal. It involved the advertising

involving hospital services.

I thought that perhaps I would get the facts after the allegations

were made that our hospitals' doors were going to be closed. And where

do you expect me to go? I'm going to go to the hospital in my community

— the regional hospital in Prince George. It is a fine hospital and I

might say — in support of the government — that over the last three and

a half years there has been a magnificent improvement in capital

expenditures made. It's something we're very proud of.

A statement was made that we were turning people away. It was rather

embarrassing for my opponent in the last provincial election, who

happened to be a practising doctor and working in the hospital. You

know, people in my community never had to worry about health care at

all. The hospital was open. The advertisements which the members

opposite had placed before the electorate were untrue. I accept that as

part of politics, but what I can't accept and what really bothered me

was the type of fear that it seemed to put within many of the

electorate — supporters of either party. There was a fear, and I don't

think that is a fair type of campaign practice at all.

This is a quote which came out of a letter from the hospital

administrator. I will tell you that hospital administrator has had

difficulties with the government — as all do, because they want a great

deal of money. They want everything and we know how expensive additions

to hospitals are — and the type of equipment which they require.

Summarizing briefly, he said:

"Our construction activity…I believe it accurate to

say that the plans are developing well and that, in accordance with the

minister's response to our brief last year, the government has been

working positively with us to accelerate the completion of our regional

facility. We will certainly keep you advised of developments."

He goes on in his letter and says: "There is one problem which we

have and it involves parking." I want you to know that I took exception

to some of the advertising that went out because it involved more than

just politics; it involved a concern, and a genuine concern, expressed

by some of the electorate who were not informed.

There's one item which I feel I have to raise. I was hoping that the

members for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt) would be here. I'm afraid that I have to take issue with this.

It involves a statement from the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King). I don't really believe that member understood what he said.

I have the Blues in front of me and they state clearly, unless the

Blues are incorrect, when he makes reference to the hon. member for

Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs — he made it clear:

[ Page 1325 ]

"...problems with the law to the extent where they have found it necessary

to bug his office." I'm only going to mention this in passing, Mr. Speaker,

but the member for Vancouver Centre and the member for Coquitlam-Moody, being

members of the legal profession and both practising, are well aware of what

happens in the contents of affidavits when applications are made for interceptions.

The public will draw conclusions, and draw those conclusions because they have

not been informed and are not educated in that particular area. You can't blame

the public when they rely on a statement made by a member.

The concern which I have is this: when a statement is made about

something that serious, I think one should be very, very sure of what

one is saying, because there is nothing else that we have — and I am

talking to all members of this House — to take to our graves than our

reputations. Nothing else matters but that when we leave this place

we've left it a better place. That's all that matters; and it is so

easy to hurt somebody's reputation.

There is something very fundamental as well within our system of

justice; it's a basis of our rule of law. There is a presumption, and

we all know what that presumption is: because of the particular safety

within this chamber we can make statements without fear. I think that

while that privilege should be given to us, when we're talking about

things like this, we also have a duty to make it abundantly clear that

we know of what we talk, and that we never cast aspersions upon any

member of this House unless we really know what we are doing.

I don't think I should make any further statements on this, except

the following: I don't think we should make a statement until we know

that our ship is in port. That's all I have to say with respect to it.

But I have to tell the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) that it

pains me to have to have said what I did; but I feel I am not only

duty-bound but honour-bound and morally bound to express my views on

that subject.

Back into more of the substance on the throne speech, which of

course I'm speaking in favour of, Mr. Speaker. That speech contains a

very ambitious project for our province.

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

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

I think we must make reference to the insurance program that has

come through. The program is important. Expansion of the capital

expenditures in the province is significant. When I go to my own riding

I know the amount of money that's being ploughed in. There is a recent

twinning of another pulp mill, and from a social point of view we will

now have at least another 250 to 300 employees as a result of the

confidence which that particular company had in our province. When you

have that type of confidence within the province, it must be a

reflection upon the government of the day. We know about the expansions

in sawmills and exploration. The north and the central interior of this

province are moving and moving well.

If ever any caveat is placed upon it, it's something which it's

impossible to control, probably the cruellest thing of all: inflation

and the cost of borrowing capital. There is no question that that cost

is affecting some residential development. It's fortunate that we in

our community are able to provide land, serviced with every type of

service which goes to a particular residential lot, and manage to put

that on the market at a price acceptable to all. It's an encouragement.

Probably one of the best things of all, too, is that when they acquire

that lot, people in our community own it and no longer need to worry

about the leasehold concept.

Mr. Speaker, transportation is significant to those of us from the

central interior and the northern part of this province. The program

sponsored by the government and encouraged by the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has been very

significant, and I am delighted to see what has happened. A commitment

was made to our community, and it's now being delivered in the nature

of improved roads and bridges, all under construction or in the

planning stage.

In conclusion, I speak in support of the throne speech. It's going

to provide an exciting future for the province. Indications are there

of confidence in the economy, capital construction and social programs,

and the delivery of denticare. I'm very pleased about this, because

when I made my first speech in the House last year it was something I

alluded to when I had the honour of responding to the throne speech. I

made reference to it, and I was pleased. It's in the speech, and it's

going to be delivered.

One final comment, Mr. Speaker. What makes us different from the

members opposite, in my view, is this — I've said it before: it's the

private sector that creates the wealth of the nation, and it's with

that wealth we will successfully implement the social programs we all

want. The important thing is to maintain confidence in the economy.

We'll encourage the area in the private sector, because it's they who

will help us all.

MR. LORIMER: Firstly, I would like to congratulate the member

for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his election as the Deputy Speaker. We will

all be watching this member with keen interest to determine whether, in

fact, he is worth the price of a bridge. We will find that out, I am

sure, within a few months.

On a more serious note, I would like to state that like other

members in this House, I watched and witnessed the show on the CBC news

last night — the 6 o'clock news. I must say that I was appalled and

deeply saddened by what I saw. Here was an expose of favours being done

for friends of the Deputy Attorney-General, and for friends of the

government. The allegations were very clear and if, in fact, they are

correct, there have been, to my mind, very serious infringements of the

duties and responsibilities of the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

We all know that immediately on hearing of the questions involved

with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), locks were

placed on the doors of that particular member; there is a problem that

some evidence might escape. Last night our House Leader (Mr. Howard)

sent a telegram to the chief justice of the Court of Appeal of British

Columbia, and I'll read it:

I AM GRAVELY CONCERNED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. IN A NEWS REPORT RELEASED THIS EVENING BY THE

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION DEEPLY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE

CONCERNING THE OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF MR. RICHARD VOGEL, DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL,

MR. GARDE GARDOM, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND MR. ALLAN WILLIAMS, PRESENT ATTORNEY-GENERAL

OF THE PROVINCE. AS HOUSE LEADER OF HER MAJESTY'S LOYAL OPPOSITION I MAKE NO

[ Page 1326 ]

JUDGMENT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS. THE IMPLICATIONS

OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE SUCH THAT THE CITIZENS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MUST BE

ASSURED THAT POSSIBLE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THESE ALLEGATIONS IS PROTECTED. THEREFORE

WE HUMBLY ASK YOU TO USE THE INHERENT POWERS OF YOUR OFFICE TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING

STEPS FORTHWITH:

(1) ISSUE AN ORDER TO PHYSICALLY SEAL THE OFFICES AND FILES

OF MR. VOGEL, MR. GARDOM, MR. WILLIAMS.

(2) REQUIRE THE PRESENCE OF RCMP OFFICERS

IN THOSE OFFICES TO ENSURE THAT ANY POSSIBLE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THESE MATTERS

WILL BE PROTECTED.

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

I know that this may have come as a shock to many of you last night,

as it did to me. After what we witnessed last night there can be

little….

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

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate your guidance on the

following. We've just heard from the member that a matter has been

referred to the court for consideration. In view of that, your guidance

is sought as to the degree to which it can be discussed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is only on such a matter as has

been referred to the court in actuality that it becomes a matter of sub

judice. However, I would remind the hon. member who has the floor that

the scope of debate is limited to the extent that if personal

allegations are to be made, they are to be made on substantive motion

only, and that motion requires two days' notice.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am not making any allegations

whatever, and with reference to my learned lawyer friend from behind, I

would like to suggest to him that there's been no telegram sent to the

courts or any action taken by the courts.

As I have stated, I am making no allegations whatever as to the

truth or otherwise of the show that I witnessed last night on

television.

But after what we witnessed last night, I suggest that there can be

little trust and little confidence in the high echelons of the

Attorney-General's ministry. There can be little faith in the Deputy

Attorney-General; there can be little trust in the former

Attorney-General; and there is certainly a cloud over the head of the

present Attorney-General.

The whole sordid mess now brings into question the decisions reached

in a number of other inquiries made by the Attorney-General's ministry.

What interference came into the decisions reached with reference to the

Lettergate investigations? Did the Deputy Attorney-General interfere in

those decisions? What about the case involving the member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie)? Was there interference in this case? We

don't know. However, as a result of the information, we do know that

there is a cloud over the head of that honourable member.

Surely we all appreciate that the cornerstones of a free democratic

society must be measured by the justice system of that particular

society. Without integrity in the administration of justice, there can

be no freedom in the state. Without integrity in the Attorney-General's

ministry, democracy is in serious jeopardy. The rot apparent and

alleged by this TV program must be eradicated.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

It appears from statements in the newspaper that the

Attorney-General had knowledge of this program and of the allegations

prior to last night. The Province of this morning states:

"Before leaving for Vancouver Thursday,

Attorney-General Williams said he had approached the CBC Wednesday to

ask if an agent appointed by himself could view the film before it was

shown. 'I explained to Len Lauk (Gary Lauk's brother), head of CBC

Vancouver, that I was in no way suggesting that the film should not be

shown or the item broadcast. But as it could have serious repercussions

on the administration of justice across Canada, I would like to be

apprised of its content'."

So he knew. And I agree with him that it has an impact on the

administration of justice throughout Canada. But he knew at least two

days ago of the allegations. The former Attorney General knew about the

allegations some months ago, apparently, due to the fact that a letter

had been written to him from the prosecutor in Vancouver. I think that

those letters should be tabled in this House. I think there are now a

number of other things that should be tabled in this House — the

investigations that have been held through the Attorney General's

ministry.

We know that at least two days ago the Attorney-General had

knowledge.... We were advised on the program that the former

Attorney-General had knowledge of the allegations some months ago. I

wonder how many other members of the executive council knew about the

alleged goings-on in the Attorney-General's ministry. I wonder if the

Attorney General had knowledge of the allegations being made when he

said a few days ago that he had complete confidence in the Deputy

Attorney-General. These are all questions that must be answered.

MR. BARBER: What did the Premier know?

MR. LORIMER: Yes, what did the Premier know? Did he have

knowledge? Did they have knowledge and stand idly by in the hope that

nothing would come of it, and in the hope that it would be buried? But,

you know, there are many, many other people in this province who have

been accused of a variety of crimes — impaired driving, failing to take

a breathalyser test. Many of those people have gone through the mill.

They've taken their punishment; they've had no favours from high up.

This is a very, very distressing day in the history of this

province. It's quite clear what steps the Premier has to take. He must

follow the long-established traditions of the British parliamentary

system. I was surprised that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams)

was not here to open the proceedings this morning with a statement. He

certainly should have been here. No, it's business as usual. And I was

surprised that some other member of the executive council didn't stand

up in his place, if the Attorney-General couldn't

[ Page 1327 ]

be here, to make a statement with reference to the

exposé that appeared last night. Is this another matter of style of

conduct that will be ignored? The many questions raised must be

answered, and until those answers are made there must be certain action

taken by the Premier of this province. Immediately, he must insist on

the stepping aside of the Deputy Attorney-General, of the

Attorney-General, and of the former Attorney-General. To do otherwise

would be a flagrant disregard for the traditions that have been

established over the centuries by the system of parliament in Britain

and in this country.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to rise in my place in this debate on the throne speech. I

would like at this time to congratulate the new Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Smith), the new Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and

the new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) who have joined us in

the cabinet. Oh, and I apologize to the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Rogers); I missed him. However, I'm blessed with having on one side

of me a very energetic lady, the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs.

Jordan), who as Minister of Tourism will I'm sure do an excellent job

in representing that industry in the province. She brings a lot of good

grace and humour to this bench, which will, I think, make my days a

little more pleasant than in the past. On the other side I have a

gentleman from Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who brings a

fair amount of stability to the other side of my bench, and that will

certainly give me guidance as well — maybe keep my comments under

control when the debate gets a little heated. I would also like to

congratulate the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his appointment as

Deputy Speaker.

Before I proceed, I would like to comment on two matters that were

raised by the previous speaker. First of all, he mentioned the Deputy

Speaker's appointment, and that the member for Delta — one member —

would benefit from the bridge that is proposed to go across Annacis

Island. Mr. Speaker, there are 75,000-plus people who will benefit from

that bridge going across, and that member for Burnaby Willingdon (Mr.

Lorimer) should recognize that. In shortsightedness he probably won't

accept that concept; however, he should recognize that the people of

his community and the people of the communities on the other side of

the Fraser will certainly benefit from that new bridge.

The second matter, Mr. Speaker, is a serious matter. The member has

made remarks concerning the CBC report last night, and has implied a

number of things based on a CBC report only. The Premier of this

province stood up and stated that it was a very serious matter and

advised that the Attorney-General would be making a statement as soon

as possible. I would suggest, considering the seriousness of the

matter, that when the Premier of the province states that at the

earliest opportunity the Attorney-General of this province is going to

make a statement, there should be the courtesy extended by the

opposition to at least wait until the Attorney General makes that

statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

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

Mr. Speaker, I felt that it was my responsibility, as an elected

member of this House, to make those comments regarding the last

speaker's remarks.

In regard to the opposition's debate which we have had in this House

to date, I think it is only fair to say it has been repetitious and

boring and it deals, basically, in personal attacks on the Premier and

members on the government side of the House. They had stated in the

press, for the past several months, that the reason we weren't calling

the House is that we weren't prepared to debate such important issues

as energy, unemployment and the economy. Mr. Speaker, I have not heard

from those members opposite on energy matters, unemployment in this

province, or on the economy.

Their attack has been somewhat lacking. Even in the first day during question

period they ran out of questions. They have dealt with newspaper articles; they

have dealt with "dirty tricks" — and I'd like to come back to

that later on.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are all leaving.

HON. MR. HEWITT: They are all leaving. I hope that's not a

reflection on my comments or my quality of debate, Mr. Member, but I'll

proceed anyway. My colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is

listening. I appreciate that. I am pleased to see that there are people

in the gallery today because very often we debate down here without too

many people listening to what goes on in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the House Leader of the opposition on the first speech in response

to the throne speech said: "Free enterprise is a heartless system."

That remark sets out the type of philosophy that party has. I would like to

deal with the "free enterprise system" and the results that have taken

place in the past nine months, which have been reported to the members of this

House and to the public through our quarterly financial reports. Let's see whether

the private enterprise system is a heartless system.

In the December 1979 nine-month report, minerals had revenues of

$471.6 million. In 1978, the nine-month report was $297.4 million,

meaning tremendous growth in the economy because of the activity in the

mining industry.

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

Corporation tax: $290 million for the nine months, 1979, compared to

$254 million for the nine months ended December 1978 — an additional

amount of tax coming from the corporate sector, and rightly so because

their revenues are up and they have to pay taxes on their revenues.

Those are factors which indicate to anybody that the economy of this

province in the nine months ending December 31, 1979, was expanding,

was growing, was stable, was sound; and it shows that the corporate

sector, "the private enterprise sector," was contributing, through

corporate tax, more dollars to the provincial revenues of this

province. The personal income tax, which we face as individuals, for

the nine months ended December 31, 1979, was $837 million compared to

the December 31, 1978, figure of $900 million. That's a reduction to

the personal taxpayer of this province because we reduced the tax

points on personal income tax in this province last year.

The social services tax is the one that we've been told about from

1975 on, when we had to raise it to 7 percent and then dropped it back

down to 5 percent and now it's down to 4 percent, the second lowest in

Canada. The reason we had to take it to 7 percent is because of what we

inherited from that party in 1975. Bearing in mind that the revenue

from social services tax was $463 million for the nine months, 1979, and

[ Page 1328 ]

$485 million for the nine months ended December 31,

1978, there was a reduction of taxation to people who pay taxes on

consumer goods.

We have indicated that we have an economy that is stable and

growing. We've indicated that we can reduce taxes because this

government has brought in policies to enable the economy to expand and

to enable the private enterprise sector to grow, which allows it to pay

taxation, which allows us to provide social services.

So let's then look at the social services that have been made

available in the expense

section of government, which is really what

our role is all about; we gather the taxation from the producing sector

and provide social services to the people of this province.

Health expenditures for the first nine months in 1979: $970 million

compared to $798 million for those nine months to December 31, 1978 — a

growth in that sector of over $100 million.

Human Resources: $472 million for the nine months ended December 31,

1979; $426 million for the nine months ended December 31, 1978. More

funds provided for social services in this province.

Education, the same thing: $847 million for 1979; $781 million for

1978 — again growth in the future of the people of this province by

providing education to them.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) says the private

enterprise system is a heartless system. They can't quite grasp that

government can't give to you unless it takes from you. If they had

their way it would all be government. The government would own industry

and commerce, would control the finances, and with that, I suggest,

would bring down this province the same way they almost did in the

three years 1972 to 1975.

To point that out, look at the expenditures, the deficits and the

balanced budgets — or surpluses, if you like to call them that —

between 1973 and 1975. We had $278 million overexpended by that

government between 1973 and '74; $263 million in 1974 and '75. In the

last three or four months of the fiscal year we came in and turned that

around because we had to bring in those "heartless policies," but we

balanced the budget and had a surplus of $16 million — that's pretty

close to balancing it. From then on, with the policies, the legislation

and the programs, all aspects of the private sector have generated

revenues which have allowed us to maintain a balanced budget us to

accumulate a surplus.

The member for Vancouver — I can't remember where she comes from;

she lives in Point Grey, but I can't remember where she comes from....

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown); I think that's

the riding. She attacks the surplus of $300 million in the paper. She

quotes specific items and points out that this government "is

heartless," but she doesn't grasp — or maybe she does but won't admit

it — that a $200 million program for low-interest loans for housing

helps all levels in this province, all classes of people with rental

accommodation, mobile homes, modular homes, multiple dwellings,

single-family dwellings; it helps the forest industry and the

construction industry. A total cross-section of this province was

assisted by that program. As my good colleague the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) says: "You can't fund that type of program with a

deficit." That's the reason I think this government will be here for

many years to come, because people recognize this.

We talk about small businesses — you know, this government doesn't

look at the small business, doesn't assist small business. Well, I'll

tell you, that's entirely wrong; statistics indicate it's wrong. Maybe

it's through my accounting background that I like to deal with

statistics, but I always figure that figures don't lie. Somebody said

liars figure but figures don't lie. If you look at the growth in

registrations of companies in this province.... These companies that

register for business aren't the big corporations — they've been here

for years — these are the small and medium-sized businesses. In 1979,

17,600 new B.C. companies incorporated. If you look at '72, '73 ,'74,

even 1975, we're looking at fewer than 10,000 companies registered.

So people, industry, the entrepreneur, the individual is coming to

this province. He has an idea or concept, and he knows he can have an

opportunity to make it work under this government. As a result we're

seeing increases of incorporations, of small businesses in this

province. I think that's a compliment to the leadership of this

government and to this government's policies.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena — and I go back to him because he

was their lead-off speaker; he is the opposition House Leader — took it

on himself to make comments like "the private enterprise system is

heartless." I believe it was also he who raised the point about m.p.g.

— miles per gallon, or something like that — but he related it to

money, power and greed. I would just say that if you look at

money...people forget this but when the NDP came into office, strange

as it may seem, they raised the MLA's salary by 100 percent in one fell

swoop. Maybe we should repeat that now and again because people should

be aware that sometimes what they talk about and what they do are two

opposite things.

They talk about power and they are quite prepared to get into bed

with special interest groups in this province in order to achieve

power. I don't think that is unfair to the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke), because they know full well that they have aligned

themselves with the labour movement on many occasions in this province.

They talk about greed. I would suggest that the concept behind that

party is to bring the private enterprise system down — to have control

by government, to make government all-powerful in the end, and control

would be by "a favoured few."

Mr. Speaker, I said I was going to talk about dirty tricks, because

this government has taken a tremendous amount of abuse over Lettergate,

if you want to call it that, or dirty tricks. But I can give you what I

consider dirty tricks of a far greater magnitude than any

letter-writing would ever bring to the people of this province, because

it misguides the people of the province. I refer to statements that

were made during the election campaign in May 1979 regarding natural

gas.

The Leader of the Opposition was making statements that were quoted

in the paper. People feel that what they read in the paper is accurate

and the reporter, in doing his job, feels what the Leader of the

Opposition states has been fairly well researched and is fairly

accurate.

[ Page 1329 ]

Here is a quote: " 'Selling natural gas at a lower rate has cost

$150 million in provincial revenues to British Columbians at a time

when schools, hospitals and municipalities were feeling the pinch,' the

former Premier said in a rousing speech." He was talking about the fact

that we weren't getting the same price as Mexico was, if you remember,

in exporting natural gas to the United States. We were getting

something like $3.20 per 1,000 cubic feet, and they were getting $3.50.

So he said it was costing the taxpayers of this province $150 million,

and he said that people were suffering because of it.

Well, I have to tell you that in making those statements he misled

the people of this province, because at no time was Mexico getting

$3.50 per 1,000 cubic feet for natural gas. As a matter of fact, the

main natural gas pipeline was still under construction — it was only 60

miles off the U.S. border. Now I call that a dirty trick. I call that a

dirty trick because what happens is the people who read the paper read

it and assume that what the former Premier, the Leader of the

Opposition, states is fairly accurate. Let's face it — all politicians

may be stretched now and again. In effect he says that this government

is taking money from the mouths of people who are in need. I call that

a dirty trick.

Uranium mining. You know we have put a moratorium on mining and

exploration in this province. However, during the election campaign

again the Leader of the Opposition went around this province and stated

very clearly that the NDP do not support nuclear power or uranium

mining — they are opposed to this type of thing. He stated that many

times. Never had that been a policy of the NDP. We questioned him

periodically about the fact that if they had national policies for the

NDP across this country, then the NDP government in Saskatchewan was

sort of out of step with the rest of them. However, that is not the

main point I wish to make.

I can tell you that the first exploration permit issued to a company

for uranium mining exploration in British Columbia was dated April 22,

1974. They were the government at the time. If there is a policy — and

it was a stated policy from year one with the NDP — then how come the

permit is issued for mining exploration to a company which was

exploring for uranium?

Then we have another dirty trick. It's on a very political issue,

one that I am now responsible to administer. It is the Land Commission.

This pamphlet is the type of dirty trick, in my opinion, that is pulled

off periodically by the opposition party. We in this government dealt

with an application of 626 acres in Langley for exclusion from the Land

Commission. A decision was made; we decided to take a second look,

which is under process at the present time.

Very shortly after that controversy arose, this pamphlet was

circulated throughout the Fraser Valley, an attack — and it's a

beautiful attack, done with humorous cartoons. It says: "Paving the

Farmland Hard to Swallow." It states all the thousands of acres "lost

forever." "Stop the Socred Sellout." This is the kind of level and the

kind of attack, in my opinion, that is not warranted or called for.

When we get a little heated in this House it's because of this type of

an approach, which degrades the political system in any province or in

any country.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've hit a nerve. I finally got the member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to speak up. Let me then deal with the

Social Credit "sellout" of agricultural land in this province. When the

designation was made in 1974, I believe it was, there were 11,661,600

acres designated in the land reserve. As of October 1979 there are

11,635,204 acres — a difference of about 26,000 acres, or one-quarter

of 1 percent change in the total land reserve. The member opposite

knows, and the former Minister of Agriculture — who is now in the

opposition — knows, that there is a lot of fine-tuning that has to be

done, that there are a lot of applications that come in from the Land

Commission, the regional districts and individuals, and that the

reserves will be adjusted and changed because some lands that were in

should not have been and some lands that weren't put in.... Because of

the haste that was taken in dropping that reserve on all land, they

were not included and now they are coming forward to be included.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I could talk to you about Cottonwood

Corner, Mr. Member, if you want to talk about looking after...you know,

when you deal with land reserves.

The point I'm making is that they've attacked the government in this

pamphlet where they say we now have a system where the politician is

involved. But I can tell you that the Land Commission in its operations

makes its recommendations on many, many issues and brings forward to

the Environment and Land Use Committee their recommendations. You can

see by these figures that in the majority of cases they are dealt with.

If I look at applications from municipalities or regional districts or

the commission to exclude land from the ALR since the inception of what

has gone forward under what we call a 9(1), the Land Commission has

recommended for exclusion 61,654; the actual amount done by cabinet

decision after reviewing it and hearing input was 62,690. That's about

1,000 acres difference in those ones that come before the Environment

and Land Use Committee. That, I think, is another indication of a type

of a dirty trick. Because of the press they receive or because of the

pamphlets they put out, they tend to mislead the people of this

province. I find it very unfortunate when that type of approach is

taken rather than sticking with the facts.

I'd like to digress for a minute to advise the members of the House

that as of this morning I made an announcement that I have appointed a

chairman and new members to the Land Commission. The circular will be

going out to all members and will, of course, be covered by the press.

We have a new chairman by the name of Dr. Mills Clarke, of the Land

Commission, who was a former director of the Agriculture Canada

Research Station at Agassiz and a coordinator of forage crops research

in Ag-Canada in Ottawa. He is a very highly respected man in the field

of agriculture.

We have other new appointments: Mr. Elly Framst from the Peace River

country; Mr. Joe Rogers from the Okanagan; and a former public

employee, whose name I know all members of this House will recognize,

Mr. Walter Redel, from Lands, Parks and Housing. Those are the new

members.

I look forward to working with these gentlemen. We've increased the

size of the Land Commission from five to seven. I know that we'll be

able to streamline some of the activities of the Land Commission, and,

hopefully, to re-

[ Page 1330 ]

sound to the individuals and to regional districts

and municipalities in dealing with some of the applications either for

inclusion into or exclusion from the land reserve.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), during his comments while we were dealing with the amendment

to the throne speech.... I don't want to touch on that too much because

you'll probably rule me out of order. But I want to touch on what he

said, and also, if I have the liberty to do so, to express my regret

that the opposition didn't allow all members of this House to speak on

that resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think it's highly unfortunate. It does

indicate the type of approach that the opposition has brought to this

House in this session.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development(Hon. Mr.

Phillips) stated that this party, from 1975, has turned this province

around. I've given statistics to indicate that. There's increased

productivity in this province, and, as the statistics indicate, there

is less labour unrest. We've increased the social programs, which that

party has to recognize, we've balanced those budgets, and we've got a

stable provincial economy, which is second only to Alberta's. And I

think that's a compliment to our leader, Mr. Speaker. Since I didn't

have the opportunity of saying that during the debate on the amendment,

l just want to compliment our leader for the leadership he's shown in

those areas.

We talked about — and I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) brought this one up — the redistribution, and the fact that

changes and whatever.... The comment was made regarding our

redistribution, etc. I have to smile, because when I first decided to

get into politics, in 1975, at the provincial level, I appeared before

the Judge Norris commission. And then I saw the final report. You know,

there are two ends to my riding of Boundary-Similkameen — one is

Summerland, which used to be in the Premier's riding of Okanagan South,

and the other is Grand Forks–Christina Lake which is in my riding.

Nothing was done with the Norris report, of course; but when the final

recommendations came out, they were basically that they would take the

Grand Forks area, which is an historically NDP area, away from me. But

in the end, that wasn't done. The final recommendation indicated that I

was going to be left with it, so I'm not sure whether or not there was

some consideration by that government to not carry on with the

recommendation that Judge Norris was trying to make.

Interjection.

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

MR. LEA: Have you seen it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I know you probably wouldn't see it, because

you're never in your riding; you're always down here. You're never up

in your own riding.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not really, because, you see, I'm just

giving you an idea of where the judge was making recommendations, and

possibly where they weren't really accepted.

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I've hit another nerve. This

party — I don't want to carry on too long; I think I'm probably getting

close to being out of time — has gone to the people twice in this

province. It went in 1975, when the election was called, and it got a

mandate. It went to the people in 1979 and got a mandate. And I keep

smiling when the opposition over there get very concerned at the fact

of numbers and majorities. It's like the federal NDP, where defeat is a

win, I don't know how they worked that out. The people have elected

this government, and this party is on this side of the House, and it

will continue to be on this side of the House, because what we're

advocating and what we're carrying out are programs for a sound

economy, sound financial management of this province and advanced

social programs in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, now there's a challenge.

I'm quite prepared to put money on the line, if you are, to meet you on

that. I have no doubts in my mind that this party will be back.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've got another story to tell, since we're

getting off track here. I can remember in the election campaign, Mr.

Speaker, when I challenged the Leader of the Opposition, and bet him

$100 that he could not prove his statements about natural gas sales

from Mexico and the United States. I raised it to $200, to $500, to

$1,000 — the end statement was $2,000 — and I never heard a word from

the Leader of the Opposition, because he couldn't, and he knew he

couldn't.... But that's the kind of statement that I smile about when

these people on the other side of the House talk about "dirty tricks."

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Listen, before this House is over, you're

liable to find out just how many problems you have with regard to

administration of funds. So don't be too vocal there, my friend.

The sound economy of this province, Mr. Speaker, and sound fiscal

management, and the advanced social programs, such as SAFER, in this

province, the $200 million housing program, the hospital construction

and the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation....

Mr. Speaker, they just can't get over that one. They just don't know how to

handle that one, because that gave the people of this province some ownership

in this province rather than have the government owning the resource development

of this province. The list goes on: the highway construction, the ARDSA project

under my ministry, urban transportation, denticare, revenue sharing. Those are

things that have been done, and will be done in the future, for the

[ Page 1331 ]

betterment of this province, and they're done for

two very good and sound reasons. One is sound, strong leadership in

this party, and the other is the fiscal management of this government's

finances to be able to accomplish those things that needed to be done,

because we have the funds with which to do them. So with the type of

leadership we have, with the programs that we brought in and the

programs we will bring in, this party will be on this side of the House

for many years and I'm very pleased to be a part of it.

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

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are 35 students from the

with their teacher, Margaret Taylor, in the gallery. They are studying

the structure of Canadian government. I wonder if the House would make

them welcome.

In rising to respond to the Speech from the Throne I would like to

add my voice to that of my colleagues in congratulating you, and all of

the new members who have been appointed to the cabinet. I notice, Mr.

Speaker, in going through the Speech from the Throne that the topic

which I had hoped to cover today got very short shrift in the speech,

because what I really want to talk about is the delivery of justice in

this province. I notice that in the throne speech the only comment made

about the Attorney-General's department is that he is going to turn

over the scrutiny of the holiday shopping act to the municipalities.

I'm not surprised at that; I'm not surprised that even the

Lieutenant-Governor and the Premier recognize that maybe justice is no

longer a part of the purview of the Attorney-General's department.

Last night when a group of us were watching that CBC program, we

were stunned by what we saw. We started talking about it and we said:

"Why are we surprised?" The delivery of justice by Social Credit is

done in exactly the same way in which they handle their finance system

and their economic system. You protect the rich and you punish the

poor. What we saw last night was justice Social Credit style. That's

what we witnessed. We saw that the same government which was capable of

the dirty tricks and the gerrymander, the same government which has

shamed the people of British Columbia right across this country since

September 1979 with its actions, was behaving exactly the same way in

terms of meting out justice with an uneven hand to the people of this

province. So we should not have been surprised, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: No! He used to be an inspector of schools. Wasn't

he? He didn't do that? I'm glad I was wrong, because I was really

worried about the children in the Peace River if you were an inspector

of schools.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at what happens to justice in this province

if you are poor, if you haven't got the protection of the Deputy

Attorney-General, if you're not a friend of the government, if you are

not a defeated candidate or indeed if you are not even a member of the

government at this time. Let us look at the kind of justice you get.

I'm really sorry that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) is not here because, as you know, her function in that

government is the protection of the vulnerable people in this province.

She's supposed to be protecting the poor people in this province.

Where was she, Mr. Speaker, when the justice system in this province

was going down the drain because that government over there decided to

interfere in that system on behalf of its friends? Mr. Speaker, I

hesitate even to use in this House the Anatole France quotation: "The

law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to

sleep under bridges, or to beg in the streets and to steal bread." But

I think it applies at this time. Where was the Minister of Human

Resources, Mr. Speaker, when a man by the name of Mr. Stanenov was

sentenced to 30 days in jail because he killed a swan in Stanley Park

to eat, because he was living on welfare and ran out of money before

his welfare cheque came at the end of the month?

That's right, 30 days in jail because he killed a swan to eat, but

an unconditional discharge if you jeopardize the lives of other people

by having control of a car while you're seriously impaired. What's the

difference between those two cases? The difference is that in one

instance the person involved was a victim of that government — we're

talking about a poor person who stole to eat — and in the other

instance that person was a colleague and friend of that government.

That's what justice is all about in this province. It's not important

what you do. The crime is not important. What is important is that you

should have the protection of that government.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I'm speaking in response to the Speech from

the Throne. We find that the Lieutenant-Governor, in talking about the

Attorney-General's ministry, was very careful not to mention justice or

the delivery of justice, but simply to say you no longer have any

responsibility for whether your store is open on Sunday or not; that

should go to the municipality.

Mr. Speaker, where was the scarlet tanager when a woman who stole a

79-cent comb was sentenced to eight months in jail? Where was the

Minister of Human Resources? Where is the Minister of Human Resources

when statistics are tabled that show that most of the shoplifting

crimes in this province are shoplifting of food, done by people living

on welfare, because the pittance with which this government punishes

welfare recipients is insufficient for them to eat or to feed their

children on?

Where is the minister of justice? Why was there no expenditure for

decals, burnper strips, scrolls and buttons, or even food, for these

people? Did the Deputy Attorney-General intervene? Does the Deputy

Attorney-General ever intervene when the crime we're dealing with is

one that affects poor people, when the person involved is poor? Does

that government ever intervene? Never, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, how many people in this province are in prison because

they cannot pay their bail? What is the population of this province

made up of, in terms of its prison inmates? We're told that 90 percent

of the women in prison are native Indians. What do you think they're

there for? Are

[ Page 1332 ]

they there for impaired driving? Are they there

because the Deputy Attorney-General interceded on their behalf? They

are there because they are victims of this system; they are there

because they are victims either of poverty or of alcohol abuse. We're

talking about prostitutes, drug users and shoplifters — no intervention

on their behalf, because they're poor, they're female, they've never

been Social Credit candidates, defeated or otherwise, and they do not

now sit as members of a Social Credit government in this House. So the

Minister of Human Resources does not intervene on their behalf; the

government does not intervene on their behalf.

A woman in Terrace, Dorothy Smith, was fined $100 or one week in

prison for a petty crime. The Minister of Human Resources intervened

then; the Minister of Human Resources offered her children foster homes

so that she could come down and serve her one week in jail.

That's the kind of intervention we get from the Minister of Human

Resources when people who are supposed to be protected by her come up

against the criminal justice system in this province. That's the kind

of intervention we get. Human Resources offered to pay her way so she

could fly down to Oakalla, and they offered to pick up the tab for

foster home care for her children. That's the kind of intervention that

you get under the Social Credit justice system, which protects the rich

and penalizes the poor, in exactly the same way as it does everything

else.

Mr. Speaker, why isn't the Attorney-General here to make a statement

today? Because it's no big deal to them. It's business as usual. What's

so wrong with interfering? Isn't that what Social Credit justice is all

about? Why isn't he here — the past Attorney-General or the present

Attorney-General?

We have to remind ourselves that it is that same Attorney-General

who stood in his place three days ago and told us how very satisfied

and impressed he was with the work that the Deputy Attorney-General was

doing. Was he aware at that time? Did he know at that time? Is it

possible that he could have made that statement with the full knowledge

that the Deputy Attorney-General was abusing his office on behalf of

his friends and the friends of his government? Is that possible?

Tell me, Mr. Speaker, can you tell me what that government has done

since the revelation on the CBC last night of the miscarriage of

justice in this province? What has that government done? The government

has not done anything because, presumably, the government does not see

it as a miscarriage of justice. But we on the opposition side see it as

a miscarriage of justice. We see it, and that is the reason why we met

last night after we saw that television program, and that's the reason

why our House Leader (Mr. Howard) sent a telegram off saying: "Justice

must be protected in this province, so seal those offices." Seal those

offices!

We entered the chamber this morning fully expecting that the Premier

would stand and say that as a result of those revelations, he had fired

his past Attorney-General, his present Attorney-General and the Deputy

Attorney-General. That's what we expected. Instead, Mr. Speaker, what

do we find?

MR. BARRETT: The lawyers laughing.

MS. BROWN: That's right. We find the lawyers laughing, the

two Attorneys-General, past, present and possibly future, all absent

from the chamber, and we are told that the Attorney-General is viewing

the film. He's been viewing it since 10 o'clock and it's nearly 15

minutes to 12. Has he been viewing the film since then? We, the

opposition, have been waiting for that government to take some kind of

public stand on behalf of the people in this province who do not have

the protection of the Deputy Attorney-General because they are not

related to him or are not his friends. What are they searching for in

their files? How long do they have to view a film before they can stand

on the floor of this House and say: "We believe that there has been a

serious misuse and abuse of power; we believe that there has been a

serious miscarriage of justice; and we are going to do something about

it now."? Why haven't they done it? For the same reason that they

didn't do anything about those forgers of letters, and for the same

reason that they haven't done anything about any other act of

dishonesty involved with that government.

In the final analysis, justice in this province rests with the

people. That's where the final justice lies. Unless that Premier fires

those two Attorneys-General and that Deputy Attorney-General, the

people of this province are going to fire him and his government.

My colleague, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who

spoke before me asked that the former Attorney-General and the present

Attorney-General should step aside while this matter is being

investigated and resolved in one way or another.

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

MS. BROWN: Yes. Not even to their own colleagues do they have

an even-handed quality of justice. The Deputy Attorney-General, the

present Attorney-General and the former Attorney-General should be

treated in exactly the same manner as the former Minister of Energy was

treated. Not even among their own colleagues is there any justice. Why

didn't the Deputy Attorney-General intervene on his behalf? Isn't he a

friend of Social Credit? Was his crime that he is not a defeated

candidate? Was that his crime?

I would like to add my voice to that of the other member for

Burnaby, and in addition suggest that along with the former

Attorney-General, the present Attorney-General and the Deputy

Attorney-General, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy),

who has once again failed the poor people of this province, should also

resign. If we have those resignations, then we and the people of this

province will know that the Premier is serious about cleaning up the

mess over there. But until that occurs, when we debate the Speech from

the Throne and try to talk about the delivery of justice in this

province, it is not going to be possible to use "justice" in the same

voice or in the same sentence as we use the words "Social Credit

government," because it doesn't happen.

The opposition is determined that the shame that the people of

British Columbia have had to suffer since September 1979 because of the

behaviour of that government must come to an end. We are not going to

relent in our demands that the Premier fire those three people and

himself as well.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: May I take this opportunity, as have others,

to congratulate the new members in our provincial cabinet: the Minister

of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) and, of course,

[ Page 1333 ]

the recently appointed new Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who are now making an excellent contribution to the

executive council. Also I'd like congratulate the Deputy Speaker (Mr.

Davidson) on his appointment by the Legislature.

Today I'd like to deal with something in the throne speech which has

not been touched on in terms of the quality of leadership of this

government, but before I do so.... I think we have been exposed here

once again to typical rantings and railings in terms of a matter which

has just been brought up on a television program. In view of the very

responsible statement made by this Premier earlier this afternoon that

a statement was going to be made after inquiries by the

Attorney-General, in light of what was said at the time, it seems to me

that what has just been said by the member who took her seat was quite

unnecessary. It could be categorized as the usual NDP form of justice —

just a little bit quick. It's sort of like instant justice, instant jury

I don't want in any way to take away from the seriousness of what

was said — the Premier made that very clear — but I think, in terms of

what was just said, it is a type of instant reaction and justice that

doesn't bear credibility. I think the Ayatollah would be interested to

hear some of the detailed attitudes of the member who just took her

seat, in their form of justice.

We had a good debate on an amendment to the throne speech which

raised the question of confidence in leadership. I feel it is

unfortunate that other members were not accorded the opportunity to

speak on this matter.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, this is another occasion

when the procedures in the House have been abused by a cabinet

minister. The record shows that 14 members of the government had an

opportunity to speak on the amendment....

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

MR. HOWARD: Seven of them were cabinet ministers, and if the Premier

didn't take the opportunity to speak....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: This is an example of a spurious point of order.

It is the kind of abuse of the rules which is fast encouraging the

Chair to ask for the standing order under which the member presumes to

take the floor.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think most people in British

Columbia are well aware of the many capabilities of this Premier, in

particular those which have been well debated in terms of fiscal

responsibility: the way in which in the early days of this government

he dealt with the tremendous financial deficit, the ICBC chaos and

other matters of that kind. Currently he certainly deserves

considerable credit — and has nationally received this, in such matters

as the new BCRIC program, the low-interest loan program — national

accord — and, of course, more recently a gigantic enterprise in

Vancouver, most encouraging to their future economy, B.C. Place.

What I would like to deal with today is his tremendous contribution

in terms of dealings with our national government. This is not just my

notion, Mr. Speaker. After taking government in late 1975 he

immediately, within hours of our appointment, dispatched a group of us

to Ottawa to deal with the national government on issues of that time.

That is what I call leadership.

Secondly, within a matter of weeks he organized well-researched

presentations at first ministers' meetings in terms of the economic

position of British Columbia and in terms of constitutional programs.

You see, when we took office in 1975 federal-provincial relations were

at the lowest ebb they had been at for a great many years. In record

time, through these well-prepared and well-presented proposals for

constitutional reform and economic change, the Premier of this province

established himself as a leading national figure on these issues.

It is not just for me to say this. Many other well-regarded writers

have said it. Here is what Keith Spicer said in the Montreal Gazette on February 15 last year:

''Waving a reproachable position paper at Canada's ten

other first ministers, Premier Bennett seemed the only provincial man

at last week's Ottawa summit on the constitution to plead for more than

money or jurisdictions.

"Bennett realizes he cannot shrink 2,910 miles between

Ottawa and Victoria, but he hopes to reduce emotional distances by

giving British Columbia a sense of representation and belonging in

Canada. His device: a new federal Senate, where a recognized Pacific

region, British Columbia, would send provincially chosen delegates in

numbers equal to those from either the Prairie, Ontario, Quebec or

Atlantic regions.

"Canadians outside British Columbia should not

underestimate either the depth of the Premier's conviction about a

five-region country or the accuracy with which he reflects British

Columbia's outlook on Canada."

Mr. Speaker, don't listen to me. Here is another gentleman, quoted from Report on Confederation ,

the July-August 1978 issue, which I think points up a contrast between

this provincial Premier and the former one. Headline: "A Confederation

Debater With the Best of Them."

"The Premier of British Columbia has put a major

effort into developing constitutional proposals tailored to British

Columbia's economic interests. He shifted B.C. from odd man out to

fifth man in at federal provincial meetings, calling for political

allocation according to five regions, of which B.C. Is one."

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

In contrast, here's another paragraph:

"The next three years under the New Democrats didn't

see much improvement. The scrappy Dave Barrett, as NDP Premier, riled

Trudeau by telling him to 'fuddle duddle,' and alienated his fellow

Premiers by blabbing confidential discussions to the press."

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

And it says:

"Then along came Bill. Bennett was the only Premier

not to speak from a prepared text in lead-off speeches at the

federal-provincial summit. However,

[ Page 1334 ]

it adds up economically. British Columbia is now an activist

in the Confederation debate. No more empty chair, no splendid isolation; there

is a patriotic head above the patriotic heart behind the British Columbia wallet."

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

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

That's leadership. "The scrappy Dave Barrett" — I won't repeat the

previous expression — "alienated his fellow Premiers by blabbing

confidential discussions to the press." That's leadership, is it, Mr.

Speaker?

Here's an

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

Premier Bennett has vastly improved Victoria's relations

with Ottawa. True, Prime Minister Trudeau's Liberal government probably is attuned

more closely to Socred policies than it was to the NDP, if not to the degree

a Conservative administration in Ottawa would be. But Bennett says he's made

a special effort to brief himself on Ottawa's programs, and British Columbia

businessmen seem impressed.

" 'We've received more federal grants this year than ever

before,' says a top career official of the British Columbia Ministry of Finance.

He ticks off a few of the bigger bundles from Ottawa: $81 million to B.C. Rail

— its first grant in over 20 years; $80 million for post-secondary education

in the province; $85 million for a sweeping five-year program of agricultural

and industrial development; $10 million, also on a matching basis, to help fund

a feasibility study on the vast northeastern British Columbia coal reserves,

and, for the first time, an $8 million subsidy to B.C. Ferries. Most British

Columbia businessmen seem to agree that British Columbia, plainly marching to

a different drummer after its fling with folly, is once again headed in the

right direction."

And here's another, Mr. Speaker, from the Financial Post ,

February 11, 1978, by the columnist, John Schreiner: "An exceedingly

serious-minded man, Bennett knows that province-firstism no longer is

good enough. In the 1950s the world came knocking on British Columbia's

door. Going into the 1980s, it is the other way around. That's why the

Premier, who is deeply concerned with the lack of national industrial

strategy, has developed policies for presentation to the first

ministers."

That's what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Look at these documents presented

in well-researched papers at the first ministers' meeting — "The

British Columbia Position Towards An Economic Strategy For Canada," our

"Constitutional Proposals" presented at the first ministers' conference

in October 1978. He received terrific accord, and this province owes

him a debt for the effort which was put into these presentations on

behalf of the province of British Columbia. He was not simply going

down and dealing from the seat of his pants and not according proper

respect.

Just look at the results in terms of federal-provincial contracts

and agreements reached in the past four and a half years. Just to

mention a few: a new ARDSA agreement to encourage development of the

agricultural sector and food processing industry in rural British

Columbia, a new contract signed in July 1977; a new youth employment

agreement, signed on April 1, 1979; a new crop insurance agreement,

signed in April 1978; a new farm labour agreement, for assistance to

farms by providing a farm manpower program, signed in April 1978 — all

new agreements, Mr. Speaker — a new British Columbia-Canada agreement

for the demonstration and development of energy conservation, a

five-year program, signed in May 1979; a new Salmonid Enhancement

Program, involving many hundreds of millions of dollars over a 10- to

15-year period, formally signed on March 2, 1979; a new Fraser River

estuary plan, signed in 1979.

There was a new Intensive Forest Management Program signed in May

1979 which is extremely important to this province; a new industrial

development subagreement, a five-year program, signed in 1977; a new

Travel Industry Subsidiary Agreement signed in 1978 for a five-year

program, terrifically important to this province; and, of course,

several agreements under the NHA proposals with our national

government, including a new contract covering an Assisted Rental

Program master agreement signed on April l, 1977.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker: the Community Services Program, signed

in April 1979; a new Neighbourhood Improvement Program under the

National Housing Act; and, of course, a new Ferry Subsidy Agreement,

never before obtained; a new Northwest Rail Agreement for $79 million.

And I might say that during the course of this Premier's leadership

arrangements with Ottawa were finalized on established programs which

had gone on for years and were regenerated into one program involving

tax points and cash. That's a very important program finalized during

this Premier's office.

Interjections.

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

Do you realize the job he has done to improve federal-provincial

relations between this province and Ottawa? I think the tacit

indication of this is recently, after the election.... His responsible

response to this in terms of the new government which takes office was:

"We're in a position to do business down there." That's not based on

any past prejudice, and we're going to look very strongly to Ottawa for

assistance in important programs that will go forward under this

Premier, Mr. Speaker.

So we know that we have, in him, sound leadership. He is a capable

leader of the largest enterprise in the province of British Columbia.

He is responsive to needs of all segments of British Columbia. He is a

statesman, not a buffoon. He makes mistakes just like we all do — you

can't accomplish anything without making a few of those — but I say to

you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this province realize the quality

of his leadership, that he is in fact the best Premier this province

has ever had, he is a statesman, and he certainly has the support of

all of the members on this side of the House, without any question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in contrast I'd just like to mention a matter

raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). He talked the

other day, along with the matter he dealt with in terms of the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), about farmland

taxation. I only want to bring this forward because he mentioned the

hardship of some constituent of his resulting from a change in farm-

[ Page 1335 ]

land taxation in which this person's taxes went way

up — an elderly individual. Perhaps the member, with respect, hasn't

really checked very closely, because he referred to this as a secret

matter, a secret order-in-council passed when the Legislature was not

in session, and said that it was typical of this government and so on.

I could go on on this in great detail, but I don't intend to, except

to say that most of what he said was simply not according to the facts.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke indicated that this order was passed

when the House was not in session. That's not true. The order he's

referring to, introducing the new standards for farmland taxation, was

passed on June 21, 1979, when this Legislature was in full session. He

said it was a secret matter. What poppycock! That matter was well

publicized. What utter poppycock! That matter was well publicized for

at least 12 months before and introduced in this House in amendments to

the Assessment Act, so I really want to inform the member, through you,

Mr. Speaker, that he would do a better job and more justice to his

constituents if he would help them, particularly elderly people, in

pursuing what is available to them under the taxation acts.

For instance, I'm informed that when this person was assisted by the

authority to make proper application, he did in fact receive the

benefit of the farmland classification, and that his taxes on his home

property, after deduction of the homeowner grant, would up at $1, as

they had been before. So I'm only saying that the member, possibly,

might be better advised to try to assist a constituent in those

measures that were available to him. Perhaps I could send this

classification over to him so that he can understand that it was well

publicized and is well documented in this House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude my remarks. I wanted once again

to remind us all of the statesmanship and the leadership we have, how

important it is to this province.

I know that we have before us a throne speech which we will soon be

deciding whether to support. After careful consideration I've decided

to support the throne speech. I've read it carefully several times. I'm

going to look forward to the budget speech too.

In any event the throne speech — after all, it was referred to as an

empty document — is just loaded with all sorts of plans and programs

that this government has ready to go. It refers to the low-interest

mortgage program, the B.C. Place, Transpo '86, the new provincial

highways policy for municipalities, the Annacis Island crossing. It's

all in there. The undertaking to rationalize the financing of the

British Columbia Railway is very much needed. The throne speech says

we're going to improve the safety regulations for occupancy of

buildings. This is something that's anticipated by anybody involved in

ownership and construction of buildings. A new family and child

services act is referred to in the throne speech. And, of course, last

but not least in a short list of items is the new dental care

assistance program.

Mr. Speaker, I needn't repeat this: I'm going to support this document when

the time comes. I wouldn't be surprised to see some members opposite, when they

really have a look at it, follow this course as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we recognize the next speaker, hon.

members, although the scope of debate under the reply to the Speech

from the Throne is very wide, I would like to warn the House that the

House has expressed itself already on the amendment question. We should

try to avoid recanvassing again the question which has already been

decided. As long as members are cognizant of this, I think they can use

it as a guiding factor in their content.

MR. BARBER: It's understandable that the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) would attempt to debate the amendment to the motion,

having failed to rise to his feet during the proper time to do so.

We've heard from the government this nonsense about closure. It was

and it is a transparent ruse to cover up their ineptness and their

mishandling of that debate. The only reason they're talking about the

absurd notion that somehow the opposition can bring in closure, a

concept brand new in the British parliamentary system, is because their

defence of that Premier collapsed, their debate fell apart, their

timing was wrong. They had no evidence to present, and they spoke when

they did with no conviction. That's why they wanted more time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I notice that since

the member has taken the floor, the mood of the House has changed

appreciably. It is perhaps because inflammatory language is being used.

I would recommend that perhaps the member, in choosing his vocabulary,

would seek to be a little more moderate. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am, indeed, a most

moderate member of the opposition who observes in a most kindly way the

fact that the reason the government invents this ridiculous notion that

the opposition closed debate is that their own debate failed and they

wanted more time. By the time the debate had elapsed according to the

rules of this House, they had run out of material, the defence was weak

and lamentable, and they discovered by the end of that day that, in

fact, true to form, the opposition had won that particular debate. So

they wanted more time.

Mr. Speaker, referring to the comments of the Provincial Secretary,

this government, the government of Seaboard, the government of the Princess Marguerite , the Rupert , the Surrey ,

and all of the other mistakes it's made, realized that they were losing

the debate and wanted to go into overtime. Well, any incompetent losing

team wants overtime to try and make up. Any team that can't play the

game properly wants overtime to try and correct their mistakes. This

opposition obeys the rules of the House. There was no closure. The

rules were applied fairly and reasonably, as you always applied them to

us when we were in government. Of course, they lost the debate.

It should be observed, Mr. Speaker, in further comment on the

Provincial Secretary's remarks, that apart from the absurdity of the

government's claim of closure, they've forgotten to tell us that the

following persons, in fact, did speak. According to Hansard ,

Hon. Mr. McGeer, Hon. Mr. Mair, Hon. Mr. Phillips, Mr. Mussallem, Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm, Mr. Strachan, Mr. Ritchie, Hon. Mr. Waterland, Mr.

Brummet, Hon. Mrs. Jordan, Mr. Hyndman, Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Davis and

Mr. Kempf spoke in defence of the government, and they tell us they

didn't have enough time.

[ Page 1336 ]

The only reason they wanted extra time was to make up for the time

they wasted. The only reason they needed to go into overtime was

because they lost. They lost the debate. They had no evidence, no

material, they spoke with no conviction and, of course, they had no

success. Why else do they want to go into overtime? They had 14

speakers.

The House might also remember, Mr. Speaker, that you were most fair

and most impartial. It wasn't that the Speaker allowed 20 of us to

speak and only 14 of you. The House should be reminded that the

Speaker, fair and impartial, followed the traditional procedure in this

House. He alternated in his choice of speakers, choosing one from their

side, one from ours, the next from theirs and then from ours, back and

forth. If they had wanted more speakers, I suppose each of them could

have spoken for a shorter period of time, thus speeding the debate. If

they wanted more speakers, they could have challenged the impartiality

of the Chair and said: "You're not picking enough of us to speak." We

all know what the rules are. We all know when the debate is scheduled

to end. Mr. Speaker, you're not fair," they could have said. But, of

course, they didn't do that, because that is as ridiculous as their

argument about closure.

You were fair, the debate alternated within the rules, precisely as

it should, from one side of the House to the other. Indeed, at the end

of that debate, 14 speakers had wasted their time putting up a

lamentable and half-hearted defence of a lamentable and not entirely

hearted Premier. If that government couldn't say what they wanted to

say in all of that time, with all of those speakers, it is only because

they had nothing to say; they had no defence; they had no excuse; they

had nothing at all to offer.

In this part of the throne speech debate the opposition is pursuing

this morning, the question of justice and the administration of it in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Afternoon.

MR. BARBER: It is now afternoon, I am informed by Mr. Rogers.

We are discussing whether or not it is possible for the people of

British Columbia to have confidence in the administration of justice

under Social Credit. Some people remember the 707 days that another

Social Credit government sat on a notorious case in this province.

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

MR. BARBER: Well, we all have to grow up sometime. At least I

did. I'm pleased to admit that I was a very young fellow when it all

occurred, but I'm also pleased to observe that having spent a fair bit

of time in the educational institutions of this province, I've had an

opportunity to read something of the political history of this

province. It is not unheard of for Social Credit justice to favour

Social Credit friends. Why else did Mr. Bonner sit on the Sommers' case

for 707 days before taking the action which any honourable

Attorney-General would have taken?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I suggest that we

return to the regular practice. The member will address the Chair,

other members not interrupting him. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue in our debate

today on the question of the administration of justice in British

Columbia by pointing out the peculiar history that Social Credit has

always had in dealing with the legal problems of its members and its

friends. When the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Williams) returns to his

place — we haven't seen him all morning, but he's been on television, I

understand, not accepting his duty in the House, but manufacturing a

duty to television — we hope he will be prepared, in what we anticipate

will be his remarks, to answer a few questions that we put now and that

were put previously, last evening, on the news report broadcast by the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The government, this morning, would have us believe that they knew

nothing at all about the latest scandal into which they have plunged

until 6 o'clock yesterday evening. Well, that's just not true. This

government had been warned, we have just learned this morning, as early

as February 5 of this year that this matter was under investigation. I

would observe at this moment, Mr. Speaker, that if the Attorney General

or any member of that government even attempts to claim that they knew

nothing until 6 o'clock yesterday evening, then they are telling this

House something which is simply not true. Indeed, any member who spoke

this morning and claimed that the reason they couldn't reply was

because they had no notice, they were uninformed in advance and,

therefore, could not prepare a reply, should know now that they were,

I'm sure inadvertently, saying something that is not true.

When the Attorney-General speaks, I wonder if he might confirm that

at approximately noon, February 5, 1980, he received a phone call from

Mr. Donald Winterton, the chief of police of the city of Vancouver. And

when the Attorney General speaks, might he also confirm, as we are

informed just this morning, as follows: Mr. Winterton had been advised

of the investigation into that ministry. Mr. Winterton had met on

February 5 with an investigative journalist from the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation. Mr. Winterton had evidently been apprised of

the questions that were being asked, the inquiries that were being

followed and the implications that were becoming evident. Mr. Winterton

— one responsible law officer, at least — understood the grave

implications of those questions and of the evidence with which he was

familiar.

It is a pretence, we are informed, for that government to claim that

they have been innocent and ignorant until 6 o'clock yesterday evening.

We are advised that at noon, February 5, 1980, the chief of police of

the city of Vancouver phoned the Attorney-General of British Columbia —

if I may use his name, so that there is no confusion, Mr. Williams —

and informed him directly, clearly and explicitly of the questions that

were being raised about the conduct of the Deputy Attorney-General. Mr.

Winterton, it would appear — the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

leaves to inform the Attorney-General, who's doing whatever it's

necessary to do in the office at these times — correctly and properly

informed the Attorney-General that the CBC was pursuing a certain line

of investigation regarding his deputy.

[ Page 1337 ]

What was Mr. Williams' reply? We are informed that he told Mr.

Winterton: "If you or the CBC have anything against Mr. Vogel, you

should contact me immediately." That is, I understand, the import of

what he said. I gather that that is nearly verbatim of what he said, at

least according to Mr. Winterton. That's from the chief of police.

I hope that the government will not attempt — they have been

forewarned now not to do so — to convince anyone that as of 6 o'clock

last night they knew nothing of the case. There is further evidence

that not only were they informed in advance and not only was the

Attorney-General apparently negligent in his duties of office, but

another meeting took place about which it appears the Attorney-General

knew.

What I am trying to do at this moment, in discussing the

responsibility of this government to administer justice evenhandedly in

British Columbia, is to observe that it appears that the senior law

enforcement officer in this province, the Attorney-General, has known

for more than a month that these investigations were underway. He was

informed so by the chief of police of the city of Vancouver, whose

integrity I expect will not, at least today, be questioned by the

gentlemen opposite. We are informed that the Attorney-General knew a

month ago. The damning

part is that it appears further that the

Attorney-General, on his own initiative, did nothing to pursue the

investigation based on the information provided to him by the chief of

police. He did nothing.

Is it because the Attorney-General dismissed the chief of police as

a crank, as a man who couldn't possibly know what he was talking about,

and as someone whose credibility could not be relied upon? Or is it

because the Attorney-General hoped against hope that the investigation

conducted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would get nowhere

and would never be aired?

It's necessary for the Attorney-General, when he comes in here, to

answer the questions that we raise now. If he was indeed informed by

the chief of police on February 5, why is it that only a month later,

and only more than a month later, do we hear from him on the subject?

Why is it that he was apparently negligent in upholding the duties of

his office? And, of course, at this hour we have yet to hear from him.

It wasn't just the phone call from the chief of police which

apprised the Attorney-General on February 5 that something apparently

was wrong within the Ministry of the Attorney General.

At the Vancouver Club on December 12, 1978, a meeting took place. We

are advised that the Attorney-General of the day was informed of that

meeting. We are further informed that on December 12, 1978, the meeting

took place between Mr. Vogel, Deputy Attorney-General, unnamed senior

prosecutors in the Crown counsel's office in the city of Vancouver and

unnamed officials of the city of Vancouver police. We are informed that

at that time, Mr. Vogel heard complaints about his alleged interference

in the case of Wendy King. We are informed that at that time, December

12, 1978, Mr. Vogel was advised that the prosecutorial and the police

officials considered his behaviour and conduct to be partial, to be

inappropriate and to be questionable. We are further informed that the

then Attorney-General was himself told of this meeting and of the

charges, groundless or not, that were made then by senior prosecutors

and senior police officers in the city of Vancouver.

It is important, is it not, to ask what the then Attorney General did upon being

apprised of this meeting. We hope to hear today from the then as well as the

now Attorneys General whether or not they upheld the duties of their office

when receiving phone calls from the chief of police of Vancouver, and when apprised

of meetings that took place, under conditions of some urgency, between and among

the Deputy Attorney-General, senior prosecutors and senior police officers.

One wonders what legal advice the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy) is currently providing to the former Minister of

Transportation and Highways.

We are further informed that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams) received a letter — I do not at this hour have the date —

from a gentleman in Vancouver who made a claim, which may or may not

have been valid, but which the Attorney-General did see fit to reply

to. According to the letter received by the Attorney-General, Mr. Vogel

and a senior RCMP officer are alleged to have visited the home of then

Justice John Farris concerning the Wendy King prosecution.

According to that informant such a meeting did take place at the

home of Justice Farris. Let me restate that we ourselves have no

independent knowledge that such a meeting did take place. But it is

interesting to note what the Attorney-General did on that occasion. It

would appear that they did not see fit to act on information that was

provided at the Vancouver Club on December 12, 1978. It appears that

the now Attorney-General did nothing whatever in reply to the

information received from the chief of police of the city of Vancouver

on February 5 this year. However, he did reply to another letter. In

that letter, we are informed, he said he was entirely satisfied that

there was no truth to such a claim, no truth to support such

allegations, no evidence whatever worthy of dealing with.

There is a contradiction here in the behaviour of the senior law

enforcement officers of this province. According to the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation this morning, at no time did the

Attorney-General, by himself or by instructing any of his officers,

seek to pursue the information that the CBC had as early as February 5

this year. At no time did he see fit to uphold the requirements of his

office by making inquiry into whatever it was that the CBC informed the

chief of police about. On that instance they appear to have done

nothing. In the other instance at the Vancouver Club they appear to

have done nothing. So in two cases out of three they achieved nothing,

did nothing and upheld nothing as far as it would appear the correct

pursuit of inquiry and justice might occur in British Columbia.

However, in a third case the Attorney-General apparently did see fit

to pursue the matter, at least sufficiently so that he could write to

the correspondent and say that he was satisfied that there was no truth

to the claim that Mr. Vogel and the senior RCMP officer met at the home

of Justice Farris.

On one occasion out of three he pursues the matter; on two occasions

out of three he appears not to. Why should that be? What is the

difference among the three bodies of information apparently provided

the former and current Attorneys General? We hope this afternoon, if he

sees fit to come into the House, as he has evidently seen fit to talk

to the television, to have answers to those questions. They are

important questions because they suggest, it would seem, a pattern of

negligence, a pattern of neglect of duty and of responsibility.

Yesterday evening the official opposition, at least, was

sufficiently concerned about the matter that the leader of the official

opposition called an emergency meeting of our caucus. At that time we

made no public statement whatever

[ Page 1338 ]

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

It was, we think, a responsible thing to ask Chief Justice Nemetz if

he would order the physical sealing of the files and offices of the

three persons named in the CBC report. Now that would not have been

necessary if something else had occurred on February 5. Is it not

conceivable that a responsible Attorney-General would, having been

informed by the chief of police of the city of Vancouver that very

afternoon, have himself or another senior law enforcement officer — but

not the Deputy Attorney-General — immediately ask for a meeting with

the investigative journalists of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

who were handling the matter?

Mr. Speaker, does it not occur to you that that would have been

responsible and prudent? Does it not occur to you that had the

Attorney-General acted on the information of the chief of police at

that date and contacted the CBC, indeed last night's program may never

have been aired?

Let's look at the best possible case for the government. Let's

pretend that Mr. Donald, the prosecutor, never wrote to Hon. Mr.

Gardom, the Attorney-General. Let's pretend that no such correspondence

took place and that no such allegations could have been made last

night. Let's pretend as well that no person signed affidavits and that

no persons claimed that certain charges of impaired driving, dealt with

in a peculiar way, had any merit whatever. Let's pretend as well that

there were no witnesses to be interviewed last night by the CBC, no

documents to be shown by the CBC, no reports of meetings to be

discussed by the CBC. Let's put it as the best possible case for the

government, and imagine for a moment that the CBC's case is made of

whole cloth and nothing real. The government is hoping today,

desperately, that that is the case. The fact remains — and it is no

conjecture at all — that had the Attorney-General the wit and the sense

of responsibility enough, he would on February 5 have immediately

attempted to assess the information provided him by the chief of police

of Vancouver.

Now, I wish to state again, Mr. Speaker, that we were apprised of

that telephone call only this morning; the report comes directly, we

are informed, from the chief of police himself. Should it be that the

chief of police is, in some fashion, misinformed and does not in fact

recall a phone call from the Attorney-General, Hon. Mr. Williams, then,

of course, we expect to hear that from the Attorney-General today,

because it is a most serious matter with most serious implications.

However, if the phone call took place and if, as we are advised this

morning by the CBC, no attempt whatever was made to find out what

information the CBC had, then there is additional reason to believe

that while this whole mess is being examined, the present

Attorney-General must step aside from office.

In the British parliamentary system, for which the official

opposition has the deepest respect, it is traditional, is it not, Mr.

Speaker, that when evidence of this sort is presented, most people in

high office recognize the importance to themselves, as well as to the

system, of having it appear not even for a minute that they are sitting

in judgment on their own case. But if this phone call was made on

February 5, then it would appear that this very morning the

Attorney-General of this province has been indeed sitting in judgment

on his own case, and he has no business doing so.

Let me say it again: if the chief of police's information is not

correct, we will be pleased to have that information made public and

that statement corrected by the Attorney-General. However, if it is

correct, surely even this government in the middle of all these

scandals, this whole sordid mess associated with the Social Credit

Party for the last seven months in this province, even that government

blundering and reeling and staggering from one scandal to the next,

will finally accept their duty. I would like as well for the Attorney

General, if he speaks today.... He only has 20 minutes left. I hope

he realizes the deadline that this House observes, unless again you're

going to ask for more overtime today because he hasn't done his job

this morning.

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

MR. BARBER: I'm on my feet and he's not in his chair. If he

wanted to speak I would yield. If he were in this House and asked me to

yield to him to make a statement, I would do it instantly, and you know

it. But he's not here, and neither is the past Attorney-General and

neither is the Premier, and neither is the legal counsel to the former

Minister of Transport. I hope he will, as well, address another

question.

If there is evidence to sustain the case of the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation that there was political interference in three

cases before the courts, then it is important that we examine what

happened to a fourth case that the RCMP and a regional prosecutor

thought should be taken to the courts, but never was. Every member of

this House knows that as long as justice is not done for the member for

Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), as long as his name cannot be

cleared because the ordinary proceedings of justice were not followed,

then that member will suffer for years under the the unresolved

allegations made against him by Mr. Friesen. If that case had been

allowed to go to court without the interference of the

Attorney-General's ministry, it may well be that that member would have

been cleared, exonerated and proven innocent today; and that would have

been fair. If it had gone to court and his innocence had been

established, that would have been reasonable and fair and, indeed, that

member may well have been a member of the executive council today. But

because there was, it seems, interference in that case as well, justice

was not served and was not done to that member.

I hope that today the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) who has

16 minutes left to speak in this House, will tell us whether or not he

is still satisfied that his ministry acted appropriately to meet the

reasonable requirement for natural justice which the member for Central

Fraser Valley deserves to have met. Because if not, then people, after

last night's revelations, will inevitably ask the questions themselves

that we've asked today. If there was interference in three other cases,

mightn't there have been interference in another, and another, and

another? How many more exposés will the Canadian Broadcasting

Corporation or BCTV, or anyone else, do, before we can be satisfied

that this government understands the necessity of the utterly impartial

administration of justice, and appoints people adequately qualified?

How much longer do the people of British Columbia have to continue

to labour under the doubt that their government has been entirely

honest? How much longer do they have to wonder whether or not the

leaders of that government have been telling the whole truth concerning

the entire dirty tricks affair, and all of its aspects? How much longer

do they have to wonder whether or not we are seeing in British Columbia

what the people in the great nation to the south of us saw for

[ Page 1339 ]

two years, before, finally, almost the whole truth came out, and the

man who should have resigned at long last did? Why doesn't the

government have the guts to level with the people of British Columbia,

to tell us who it was in their employ who forged the letters, who it

was in their employ who listened to the tapes, who it was in their

employ who refused to file honest and complete declarations of election

expenses, who it was in their employ who knew about, engineered,

complied with all of those other doings? Who condoned it? Who inspired

it? Who was responsible?

Most people understand that if in September last year the Premier

had said, "You're right, things occurred that are not consistent with

the expectations of the people of British Columbia concerning

elections; I have today requested the resignations of the following

people," then the whole sordid mess would have been over in a week. But

because they stonewalled, delayed, refused, covered up, backpedalled and

did everything they could to avoid being responsible, it wasn't ended

in a week or a month or two or three or four or five or six. We're

going into the seventh month, and it's still not over.

Is there any point at which they will learn that the people of

British Columbia would have given them credit for being honest and for

admitting mistakes? Is there any point at which they will accept that

the people of British Columbia are fair-minded and are willing to hear

from people who say: "Yeah, you're right, I hired a guy who handed out

thousand dollar bills, I hired another guy who forged letters, I hired

another guy who forged cheques; I was wrong to hire them, they were

wrong to do it, they're gone, I apologize."? At what point will they

realize the fundamental obligation of government to be truthful with

its own people?

There isn't much time left for them to be truthful, because now it

would appear that certain legal events are underway which may further

and probably irreparably undermine the stature of that government in

the eyes of all of the people of British Columbia.

They've had a month to act on the CBC's information. On February 5,

the Attorney-General, it would appear, received that information from

the chief of police of the city of Vancouver. If he had taken a week,

or two weeks, or even three, to inquire fully into the matter, we would

understand that, and there would be no problem. However, just a few

days ago the report of Justice Seaton came down. In part, that report

observed, in regard to another matter, that the Deputy Attorney-General

had acted inappropriately. Knowing all of that, having been advised of

the meeting in the Vancouver Club, having responded to correspondence

that alleged yet another apparent interference, and having received the

phone call from the chief of police of the city of Vancouver, even in

the face of all that, this Attorney-General still saw fit to stand up

and say that he thought the work of his deputy was just outstanding. By

whose standard is that kind of work outstanding? I argue, Mr. Speaker,

that it is not by the standard of the people of British Columbia that

we find such work outstanding.

If I may conclude, Mr. Speaker, had the Attorney General acted on

the information he received more than a month ago, it is likely,

assuming the government's defence is correct, that the program last

evening would never have been broadcast and none of this would have

occurred. Had he acted responsibly then, and had he seen fit to deal

with the material presented by the CBC, and had he demonstrated a month

ago that there was nothing to it and the story was wrong, that would

have been fair and reasonable and appropriate and no one would have

challenged it.

What we challenge is the apparent neglect of duty and the apparent

neglect of office. And what we trust is that, after today, there will

be no more attempt on the part of that government to cover up a single

thing, that they will have learned from the mistakes of the last half

year, and will come clean with the people of British Columbia. We count

on the further fact that, after today, they will not pretend that

members of that executive council had no advance warning of yesterday

evening's broadcast, because we now know they did.

We think that because the former Attorney-General apparently knew

about it as of December 12, 1978, and because the current

Attorney-General apparently knew about it as of February 5 this year,

and because self-evidently neither of them did anything about it at

all, they should step aside for the duration of this latest Socred mess.

Further and finally, the Deputy Attorney-General must also himself

today stand aside until it is all cleared up, or else the name of that

government will never be cleared.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join

in the debate on this Speech from the Throne and to take this

opportunity to support the Speech from the Throne and the plans and

priorities of the government and the Premier of British Columbia.

I have a number of things that I would like to comment on but the

time is waning and the hour for adjournment is getting closer. I would

like to have a full opportunity to talk about the support that I have

for the Premier and the government. So I would like to take this

opportunity to adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

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

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

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to matters which

were publicly disclosed last evening in a telecast over CBC news, and

which I gather have been discussed at some length, but with some

inaccuracy, in the House today, I wish to advise you and the members of

this House that, as Attorney-General, I recognize fully the serious

nature of the allegations which were made, touching upon the Deputy

Attorney-General, Mr. R.H. Vogel. Whether those allegations are true or

false, or whether they are partly true and partly false, nonetheless,

the impact of them upon the administration of justice in this province

and in this country cannot be ignored or underestimated, and is being

neither ignored nor underestimated by me.

This morning, when I had the opportunity for the first time of

viewing the full program — I saw parts of an edited version late last

night — I immediately undertook steps to conduct a full and complete

review of all of the allegations and the matters which surround those

allegations. And I wish to advise this House that at the end of that

review I will make a full statement to this House and take such other

action as is indicated.

[ Page 1340 ]

In the interim, and because of the serious nature of these charges,

the Deputy Attorney-General this morning requested me to grant him a

leave of absence and to remove from him the responsibilities for the

discharge of the powers and duties of his office. I have responded to

that request a few moments ago, and I have, in his stead, vested those

powers and duties in Assistant Deputy Attorney-General Dennis Sheppard.

In taking these actions, I have noted the remarks made this morning

by the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. McDonald). I wish to

say simply that that member, who was the Attorney-General of this

province, either misunderstands the special responsibilities cast upon

the Attorney-General, and the burden therewith, or has forgotten them,

or has chosen, for whatever reasons he deems appropriate, to ignore

them at this time. Therefore I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that

there is no intention on my part to stand down or to abdicate the

responsibilities which are cast upon me as Attorney-General.

I have, in the course of the past few hours, had occasion to hear on

the speaker in my office some of the comments made by some members in

debate. When I have the opportunity to consider the full report of that

debate, I may have something further to say, but I wish to make this

one thing clear: the matters which were disclosed last night in the CBC

telecast were not matters of which I had had any prior knowledge from

any source whatsoever. Two of the cases referred to had been identified

to me as likely to be covered in such a telecast, but the specific

details of the allegations were unknown to me until I saw the telecast

this morning.

Being aware of two of the cases which might likely be referred to in

that telecast, by reason of communications to me from officials of the

ministry, which came, I am informed, from a CBC employee, and from

other correspondence which I have received, I requested the opportunity

on Wednesday of this week to have an agent of mine view the material in

advance of its publication.

As I indicated yesterday to the press, the purpose of that request

was not in any respect to interfere with the right of the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast whatever they thought fit, but

solely for the purpose of making certain that the matters of which I

was aware were dealt with accurately. As I say, the matters referred

to, the details of the allegations appearing last night, were not then

in my knowledge.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, the allegations, as

the Attorney-General knows, are broader than the allegations which

attach to Mr. Vogel. We've made that clear, and it's a very obvious

thing. I can't appreciate the Attorney-General's reference that I did

not understand the position of Attorney-General. I understand that, as

was said by Harry Truman, the buck stops, in these matters, on the

Attorney-General's desk, and that responsibility cannot be sloughed off

down the lower ranks of a department or out into the police, or

anywhere else, as has happened so frequently in this province in the

last few months and in the last two years. So I can only say that we

are not satisfied with the statement of the Attorney-General.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:03 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada