Spying and Lying: The Abortion Scandal that Helped Sink the Socreds

By Lilia Scudamore

Few Canadian governments — federal or provincial — have been so embroiled in scandal as William “Bill” Vander Zalm’s Social Credit Party (known colloquially as the ‘Socreds’). The government was routinely caught performing an array of improprieties, ranging from back-door deals to openly disobeying the Supreme Court of Canada to fighting with journalists on air.^[1] A 1991 timeline of Vander Zalm’s scandals was detailed in the Vancouver Sun: Keith Baldrey, “Scandal, controversy dog premier’s career,” Vancouver Sun, March 30, 1991. In his 1991 “State of the Province” address, Vander Zalm snapped at journalists when questioned about his involvement in the latest scandal and was described the next morning as “feisty,” “fighting,” and a “super salesman who has lost the confidence of his customers.” See: Keith Baldrey et al., “Premier’s TV speech gets cool reception,” Vancouver Sun, January 30 1991; Don Hauka and Barbara McLintock, “Role in gardens’ sale admitted: Feisty Vander Zalm refuses to provide details,” The Province (Vancouver), January 30, 1991. The contemporary reader may find comfort in knowing that the administration met its demise after four years in power and ultimately delivered a death knell to the provincial Socreds, who had dominated the province for nearly fifty years. However, the party got away with a tremendous amount before then. In one oft-forgotten incident, the Vander Zalm government spied on BC’s largest pro-choice advocacy group for more than six months. No charges were ever laid. The BC New Democratic Party (NDP) seized the opportunity to make promises to the public about reproductive freedoms, which it fulfilled when it assumed power in 1991.

Abortion Rights in Canada, 1988

In February 1988, Bill Vander Zalm returned from a holiday to Hawaii. Local journalists reported that he looked “tanned” and “healthy,” but his post-vacation bliss was interrupted by the realization that the province he was returning to was vastly different than the one he had left.^[2] While Vander Zalm was away, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Section 251 of the Criminal Code, liberalizing access to abortions for women across the country. The Socred premier, remembered for his right-wing social conservative views, was livid. In direct violation of the court ruling, Vander Zalm declared that under no circumstances would the government of British Columbia cover the cost of an abortive procedure.^[3] Vander Zalm’s explicit insubordination to the courts was unsurprising. It was one of a seemingly endless stream of hardline stances that alienated his caucus and led to the complete crumbling of Socred support in BC by 1991.

Activists in the province were enthused yet immediately wary of the challenge posed by Vander Zalm. Though he was on vacation, Vander Zalm’s health minister, Peter Dueck, announced just hours after the decision that the government would not pay for any abortions in the province, including in instances of rape or incest, and would continue to abide by the 1969 provision.^[4] By March, BC’s Supreme Court told the government that it could not ignore the ruling and, therefore, must permit abortion services.^[5] The Vander Zalm government begrudgingly complied.

Meanwhile, abortion rights groups across the country celebrated. The case, R v. Morgentaler, struck down the 1969 law that required women to consult therapeutic abortion committees (TACs) before accessing an abortion. TACs, which had, in theory, been intended to make abortions more attainable, were hospital boards made up of a minimum of three people that judged whether a pregnancy endangered a woman’s life or health.^[6] Pursuing an abortion without the approval of a TAC could result in prison sentences ranging from two years for the patient to life for the physician.^[7] Despite intent, TACs legislated deep infringement into women’s privacy, and included scrutiny of personal relationships, finances, educational and career backgrounds, and medical histories. Beyond disenfranchising women, TACs were cumbersome, inaccessible, and became highly politicized throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Given that TAC members were on hospital boards and hospital boards were elected, anti-choice groups began to infiltrate elections to place members on the committees and, in practice, eliminate reproductive freedoms.^[8] Therefore, the removal of Section 251 was an enormous victory for pro-choice groups across Canada.           

At the forefront of pro-choice organizations in BC was the Concerned Citizens for Choice on Abortion (CCCA). It had formed a decade earlier when a group of upper and middle-class professional women, several with degrees in medicine and law, united to counter an anti-choice infiltration of a hospital board in Vancouver.^[9] The CCCA rapidly became the most visible pro-choice^[10] group fighting for these freedoms in BC. One of their strongest allies and endorsers was the NDP, which had federally supported removing abortion from the Criminal Code since 1971.^[11]

From the get-go, the CCCA was concerned about infiltration from anti-choice activists. At one of its earliest meetings in 1978, Betty Green (president of the Pro-Life Society) had been in attendance.^[12] In its early days, the group attempted to complete background checks on all its members. However, by 1988, the CCCA had grown to more than one thousand strong and most meetings were held in the open. Therefore, when it was revealed that Vander Zalm’s Socred government had been spying on the group for months, the CCCA, the NDP, and the general public were outraged, but also confused.

Socred Spies

The story broke on a Tuesday in late July 1988. Taking up most of the front page of the Vancouver Sun, reporter Nicole Parton detailed how Vander Zalm’s first attorney general, Brian Smith, had spied on the CCCA for more than six months between January and July 1987. Smith began the operation after Vander Zalm expressed concern over the opening of a free-standing abortion clinic in the province. Smith consulted the provincial law firm, Farris, Vaughn, Wills and Murphy, which then hired an outside private investigative firm to “infiltrate the group.”^[13] The firm sent at least four private investigators into the CCCA, which, in addition to being one of the most influential groups in BC, was also one of the largest. The private investigators did comprehensive work. They taped conversations and meetings, gained access to financial records (including information about donors), and viewed the entire membership list with associated addresses and phone numbers. The investigators handed everything over to the law firm, which provided information to Smith and the Vander Zalm government.^[14]

Smith initially stated that Vander Zalm knew he was “gathering evidence” but could not recall if he delivered the reports orally or had left behind a paper trail. To explain the use of the law firm, Smith stated that he thought it was a better alternative than using the RCMP – he didn’t think the police would be “appropriate.”^[15] He also insisted that he was never interested in the names or personal information of people involved in the pro-choice movement and that he had never heard the tapes or handled direct material. He claimed, “All I was interested in was ‘Are people planning to open one of these clinics?’”^[16]

The goal of Smith and the Vander Zalm government was to collect evidence about the planning of a private abortion clinic so that, in the event one was created, the government could file an injunction long before it opened its doors. Smith maintained that it was commonplace for the government to hire outside firms to prepare cases for them and that this was no different. Only this time, the law firm escalated the case to private investigators. The PI company, Newcombe and Associates, was an unregistered business that curiously dissolved as the story came to light.^[17] Two of the investigators came forward and disclosed that they were instructed to collect extensive information about the CCCA, including its members and plans of action. At one point, an investigator had been directed to take pictures of physicians who attended a reception for Henry Morgentaler (the PI forgot to load his camera).^[18] The detectives became “leading members” of the CCCA and sat on steering committees for the organization. They even went so far as to staff the CCCA’s table at an NDP convention and act as chauffeurs when Morgentaler arrived in BC.^[19] Ironically, the Vander Zalm government paid the PIs to assist with pro-choice intellectual labour, distribute abortion rights information, and transport Morgentaler’s luggage.^[20]

The day after the Vancouver Sun revealed the scheme, the BC Civil Liberties Association called on the government to release the information it had collected on the CCCA. The vice president of the group explained to the Sun, “Government spies monitoring the affairs of a public group is very serious, and it ought to be treated very seriously.”^[21] Vander Zalm proclaimed his innocence, stating that although he was regularly updated on the status of a clinic during that period, he knew nothing of the spying until it was revealed by the media. Yet Brian Smith countered that Vander Zalm was acutely aware of the tactics and was lying to the public, who had footed the $145,337 bill towards the plot.^[22] The NDP Women’s Rights Committee expressed disgust but also noted, “What remains confusing is why the government chose to spend a lot of taxpayers’ money to obtain information already in the public domain.”^[23] The CCCA considered legal options, but opportunities for government recourse were few, as Smith had stepped down from his position a month earlier.

The NDP responded with force. The party, both provincially and nationally, condemned the actions of the Socred government. NDP MP Svend Robinson called the efforts “totally unethical and repugnant,” and BC NDP leader Mike Harcourt stated that the scheme evidenced that Vander Zalm’s government was “losing its moral and political authority.”^[24] The statements squared with the BC NDP’s staunch positioning of itself as the party of ethics on the issue of abortion. A month prior, NDP MLA Joan Smallwood had lambasted Vander Zalm: “New Democrats believe that women and families deserve accessible, safe health care covered by the Medical Services Plan in all communities. Absolutely, without question — and that includes abortion services.”^[25]

On July 29th, an ombudsperson was assigned to impartially investigate the spying of the CCCA after the BC Civil Liberties Association filed a formal complaint. The ombudsman appointed, Stephen Owen, assured the public that he would be given full access to all information, but was unsure of how long the inquiry would take.^[26] The new Socred attorney general, Bud Smith, reportedly investigated the scheme, wrote a report, and turned the information over to Owens. The report Owens received was missing vast swaths of information, including the tapes and transcripts.^[27] Though people questioned the report’s legitimacy, there were few options to appeal. With little information, the CCCA stopped pursuing legal action in September.^[28] In their remaining three years in office, the Socreds refused to open a single abortion clinic, though they were compelled to allow the operation in hospitals and private clinics.^[29]

Conclusion

After the summer of 1988, the Socred spying scandal fell by the wayside. It was never discussed in official legislative debates, and soon the predominant provincial newspapers stopped publishing stories. With little opportunity for recourse, the CCCA moved on to supporting the creation of the first private abortion clinic in BC. Additionally, Vander Zalm’s government was plagued by their next scandal in August when several officials stepped down over granting a personal favour to a pub that had lost its liquor license.^[30]

Once again, the NDP used the incident to leverage their politically expedient position as the ethical and moral preservers of the province. On the issue of abortion in BC, the NDP did follow through. After assuming power in 1991, the BC NDP passed the nation’s most comprehensive reproductive care legislation and continues to be a proud advocate of these rights. Just before the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the United States, a Sun reporter, Vaughn Palmer, revisited the fight for abortion rights in the province. He stated that Vander Zalm’s refusal to provide abortion care in BC fractured the Socreds so severely that no contemporary political party dares to debate it.^[31] The premier’s vitriol towards reproductive rights enshrined them in British Columbia. Beyond leading the Socreds to their downfall, this is Vander Zalm’s legacy.

Lilia Scudamore received her MA in History from McGill University in July 2025. She now works as a history and public health researcher with interests in climate, social welfare, and infectious disease.

This post was edited under the auspices of the project Historicizing Our Times: Histories of Migration and Climate in the Digital Space, which is supported in part by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

---

^[1] A 1991 timeline of Vander Zalm’s scandals was detailed in the Vancouver Sun: Keith Baldrey, “Scandal, controversy dog premier’s career,” Vancouver Sun, March 30, 1991. In his 1991 “State of the Province” address, Vander Zalm snapped at journalists when questioned about his involvement in the latest scandal and was described the next morning as “feisty,” “fighting,” and a “super salesman who has lost the confidence of his customers.” See: Keith Baldrey et al., “Premier’s TV speech gets cool reception,” Vancouver Sun, January 30 1991; Don Hauka and Barbara McLintock, “Role in gardens’ sale admitted: Feisty Vander Zalm refuses to provide details,” The Province (Vancouver), January 30, 1991.

^[2] “Abortion policy mocks justice,” The Province (Vancouver), February 8, 1988.

^[3] “Abortion policy mocks justice,” The Province (Vancouver), February 8, 1988; Keith Baldrey, “Vander Zalm pledges to block abortion clinic,” Vancouver Sun, February 27, 1988.

^[4] Barbara McLintock and Holly Horwood, “Opposing Sides Trade Salvos,” The Province (Vancouver), January 29, 1988.

^[5] Canada, British Columbia, Supreme Court, “B.C. Civil Liberties Assn. v. British Columbia,” Annual Review of Population Law 15 (1988): 29.

^[6] Sylvia Bashevkin, “Explaining Feminist Movement Impact: Provincial Abortion Policies in the Wake of Decriminalization, 1988-2018,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 56 (2023): 505.

^[7] Diana Dimmer and Loreta Zubas, Update on the Abortion Law in Canada (National Association of Women and the Law, University of Ottawa, August 1985), 5.

^[8] Beth Palmer, “Choices and Compromises: The Abortion Movement in Canada 1969-1988,” PhD diss., (York University, 2012), 80, 85-142. Palmer details the complexities and issues associated with TACs.

^[9] Ann Thomson, Winning Choice on Abortion: How British Columbian and Canadian Feminists Won the Battles of the 1970s and 1980s (Victoria: Trafford, 2004), 81.

^[10] Chris Gainor, “Abortion: Julia’s back-alley story,” Vancouver Sun, September 6, 1980.

^[11] Nicole Parton, “Former A-G Smith admits pro-choice group spied on: Detectives worked undercover,” Vancouver Sun, July 26, 1988; Anne Scotton ed., New Democratic Policies 1961-1976 (Ottawa: New Democratic Party, 1976), 44-45.

^[12] Thomson, Winning Choice on Abortion, 81.

^[13] Chris Rose and Sarah Cox, “Investigation of pro-choice group heavy-handed, police say,” Vancouver Sun, July 28, 1988, A2.

^[14] Nicole Parton, “Former A-G Smith admits pro-choice group spied on: Detectives worked undercover,” Vancouver Sun, July 26, 1988.

^[15] Nicole Parton, “Former A-G Smith admits pro-choice group spied on,” Vancouver Sun, July 26, 1988.

^[16] Nicole Parton, “Former A-G Smith admits pro-choice group spied on,” Vancouver Sun, July 26, 1988.

^[17] Nicole Parton, “Former A-G Smith admits pro-choice group spied on: Detectives worked undercover,” Vancouver Sun, July 26, 1988.

^[18] Nicole Parton, “Former A-G Smith admits pro-choice group spied on: Detectives worked undercover,” Vancouver Sun, July 26, 1988.

^[19] Tom Barrett, “Premier wasn’t Involved in spy-scheme, A-G says,” Vancouver Sun, August 4, 1988; Rose and Cox, “Investigation of pro-choice group heavy-handed, police say,” Vancouver Sun, July 28, 1988.

^[20] Sarah Cox, “Personal data included in spy file, lawyer says,” Vancouver Sun, August 5, 1988.

^[21] Jean Kavanagh, Gary Mason, and Keith Baldrey, “Release of A-G reports, spying probe demanded,” Vancouver Sun, July 27, 1988.

^[22] Carol Volkart, “Pro-choice group mulls legal action,” Vancouver Sun, July 27, 1988.

^[23] Nonni Graham, “Abortion Update,” Priorities (Summer 1988): 12.

^[24] Carol Volkart, “Pro-choice group mulls legal action,” Vancouver Sun, July 27, 1988.

^[25] British Columbia, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of the Debates of the Legislative Assembly, 2nd sess., 34th Parliament, June 28, 1988.

^[26] Carol Volkart, “Ombudsman to investigate pro-choice spying complaints,” Vancouver Sun, July 29, 1988.

^[27] Ann Rees, “Gaps in spy files,” The Province (Vancouver), August 5, 1988.

^[28] Justine Hunter, “Abortion group rules out suit over spy probe,” Vancouver Sun, September 9, 1988.

^[29] It should be noted that despite permitting abortions in medical settings, funding remained disputed. Several hospitals required patients to pay out-of-pocket expenses or refused to provide the service at all. Pro-Choice Action Network, “Abortion History-Chronology of Events,” Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, 2007, https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/2020/06/Abortion-Chronology.pdf; Thomson, Winning Choice on Abortion, 171-179.

^[30] “Hanson’s Choice: a wrong decision,” Vancouver Sun, August 27, 1988.

^[31] Vaughn Palmer, “Pro-choice position solid within B.C. House; U.S.’s landmark revisiting of abortion rights seems to have little chance of spreading here,” Vancouver Sun, May 10, 2022.