[ Page 945 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

The Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act (Bill No. 103) Hon.

Mr. Williams. Introduction and first reading — 945

Development Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No, 102) Hon.

Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 945

Proceedings Against The Crown Act (Bill No. 107) Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading — 945

Committee of supply: Department of the Attorney General estimates, Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 945

Mr. Smith — 946

Mr. Gardom — 949

Mr. Lauk — 953

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 956

Mr. Chabot — 956

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 958

Mr. Curtis — 958

Ms. Young — 960

Mr. Brousson — 961

Mr., Wallace — 964

Hon. Mr. Levi — 967

Motions No. 33 (Hon. Mr. Williams) Examination of guidelines on stream bank and shoreline protection — 969

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 969

Mr. Wallace — 969

Hon. Mr. Williams — 969

Motion on oral question period (Hon. Mr. Hall) — 970

Motion on bound volume of Hansard (Hon. Mr. Hall) — 970

FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in informing the House that a group of students from Victoria High School with their teacher, Bill Ashwell, are in the gallery today and I trust the Members will welcome them in the appropriate manner.

Introduction of bills

THE PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION
INCORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 103 intituled The Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 103 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor herewith transmits a bill intituled Development Corporation of British Columbia Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 1, 1973.

Bill No. 102 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN ACT

Mr. Chabot moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 107 intituled Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Bill No. 107 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL

On vote 16: administration, Attorney General's department, $74,004.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, this is a very modest request of the committee, for a modest sum of money for a very important portfolio.

AN HON. MEMBER: A very modest man.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I hope to be able to listen to the suggestions of Hon. Members in the course of this debate because it is an unfolding new programme — a kind of exciting thing that I hope is happening in terms of legal service and protection for the people of the province. But I want to listen.

I would like to say one thing about a matter that is not only important but has engaged the attention of this House; and that is the mortgage brokers field. I intend, within a very few days — three or four days — to place legislation before this House. It is a matter which has given me concern, and it has given the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) concern. It has given many other people concern, and people are being badly hurt.

I regret we have to look in terms of law enforcement and prosecutions and personnel in the civil service to try to find out where a person is being hurt, and then go in and investigate and so forth. But that is the kind of world we have been living in, you know. I know people are not being hurt in these ways in the social democracies of the world like the Scandinavian countries. I have said that before, but I mean that. We have got to increase our real services to people in terms of housing and shelter and needs, so there are not desperate people who go above ground within the law, or underground if the law stamps it all out, to borrow money at exorbitant interest rates.

I have listened to the debate. I may say to my Hon. friend from North Vancouver–Capilano that I rather regretted that he kind of dodged the issue. The issue is under what circumstances should a government step in and close down a private business. We can't control the interest rates as such. I appreciate that is a matter that should give us all concern.

[ Page 946 ]

I ask my friend, on what conditions this ought to be done. Under what circumstances, the rate of interest, such and such, the kind of transaction, assuming they are within the law — because most of them are. If they are outside of the law, it is easy, But that's a bullet the Hon. Member steadfastly refused to bite. I think it is being tackled in this bill.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Some of them are outside the law now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's easy. Now, if we find that, they will be prosecuted or investigated or their license can be suspended under the existing law. It is the ones that are within the law, you know — we have to set standards. I intend to set standards whereby if in the opinion of the registrar, with an appropriate appeal, the mortgage broker is engaging in unconscionable transactions or is conducting his business contrary to the public interest, his license will be picked up.

I think it should be done in this field. In the meantime let's hope the other Ministers, like Municipal Affairs, like the Minister of Finance — financial assistance to homeowners and that kind of thing — will build up our social services in this province, as I'm sure they will, so that in this kind of capitalistic jungle in which we live, in another part of the forest good people are not being torn and gored as they are being today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This seems to be a day when we have broken a little new ground in the Legislature. Our first Friday morning sitting. It's also a new experience for both the Attorney General and myself. He is taking his estimates through the House for the first time and I am standing on my feet to lead off a debate in that respect for the first time. Perhaps we will both learn a little bit during the course of this session.

I was interested in the Attorney General's remarks that he wants to listen. We also hope he wants to answer a few questions.

It must be apparent to all of us right at this moment that, while you may want to listen, you are not particularly interested in listening, at this moment at least, to our comments about the Pacific National Exhibition, or a development corporation in the Province of British Columbia. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman that those bills were deliberately brought in this morning to stifle debate…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: …on the content of those bills. Certainly if the Attorney General believes in open government he could have either delayed those bills until after this morning's session…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The PNE isn't under me.

MR. SMITH: …or brought them in next Monday. Certainly it cuts off any meaningful debate that we may have been able to have in your estimates regarding these two very important matters.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The matters are under the A.G., so go ahead.

MR. SMITH: Under development corporations, is not part of your department under another hat?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, we haven't reached that yet.

MR. SMITH: I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that there is an agreement that when we're in the Attorney General's estimates, and his salary, that the debate can be fairly wide ranging because of the fact that he does wear two hats. One is the Attorney General, and the other is Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Are we not going to be able to debate in a general way philosophy and so on, in both areas of his responsibility?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, a point of, order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: My friend has raised a very valid point. But these fields are so dissimilar that I think it's in the interest of the Opposition as well as the Government that we discuss them separately, so that debate on the industrial development thing can take place when we reach that vote.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, then might I say this. Will you allow latitude? And is the Attorney General prepared to give the Opposition a fair amount of latitude in the debate under Industrial Development?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: If we're not going to be able to examine it in broad terms during the Minister's estimates on Industrial Development, then we might as well have the debate now on both the A.G. and Industrial Development, although I would prefer, and I think the rest of us would prefer, to do it the other

[ Page 947 ]

way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Up until now we've had the cooperation of the House in respecting the wishes of the Minister. I think that the proper thing to do now would be to respect the desire of the Minister to debate these matters separately. Therefore I will so rule from the chair that we will do this.

MR. SMITH: I'm prepared to accept the ruling. And it's not that we want to complicate it. It's that we want to be able to discuss in broad terms Industrial Development when we get to that point, at the appropriate time.

The Attorney General at times during the past few months has made a number of comments. Some of them of course have been recorded in the Press. I think that they indicate, in broad terms at least, some of his philosophy — the philosophy of his position as both Attorney General and the other Minister's hat that he wears. I presume that some of the things that he has said reflect what is being contemplated by the Minister.

In my experience, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I've seen a Minister become so discouraged so quickly. He's only been in the chamber for about 20 minutes and he's already left.

In any event, I believe that we would like the benefit of the Attorney General's philosophy on a number of different points.

One of the things that we would like to discuss with him is his position on an ombudsman for the Province of British Columbia. He has certainly indicated in a number of speeches that he would be prepared to act on the matter of providing a provincial ombudsman to this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is a private Member's bill before the House.

MR. SMITH: I would think that the Minister might want to state a position, as he has done previously in the Press, as to where he stands on the matter of…

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a bill before the House, Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: I'll pass on to another particular point that I wish to discuss with the Minister. And that is the matter of a B.C. Human Rights Act, and his position on that. He's indicated in broad terms that there would be changes. What is it that he has in mind? What type of changes would be made? When can we anticipate the legislation that may be pending at this time? Or when does he intend to bring it into the House?

The Attorney General, speaking as the Attorney General, has often referred to his position on the petroleum industry in the Province of British Columbia, and he may want to touch on that today and enlarge upon it under his Industrial Development portfolio. But he has time and again indicated the fact to the Press and to the public that the Province of British Columbia should be in the petroleum business, particularly in the refining end of it.

I'd like to know if that includes, in his mind, the take-over of the petroleum industry in the Province of British Columbia. He can comment generally on some of these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to confine your remarks to the Attorney General's estimates.

MR. SMITH: There was a comment or two made by the Attorney General in the past concerning the preservation of communities in the Province of British Columbia. He's talked many times about the preservation of the small town complex in the province. I would hope that he would comment on what he really means in this respect by the "preservation" of these towns.

We would like to know something about his position regarding consumer protection in the province, and what he intends to bring in in the way of legislation, if anything, in that respect.

Frankly I want to bring up a matter which I think directly concerns the Attorney General. I'm not prepared to bring it up until the Attorney General himself is on the floor of the House, because I believe that I would like the benefit of his presence when I discuss it, since it's a matter of police harassment, in my estimation. I'm certainly not prepared to discuss it until he comes back to the floor of this chamber.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Let's have a brief recess.

MR. SMITH: If the Minister is going to be absent I'd suggest to the Hon. Chairman that we recess this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would rule that you must either continue your discussion or else take your seat and have another Member take his place.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney General is not prepared to be in this Chamber at a time when we are going to discuss his estimates, then I move that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 948 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 34

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) back in his chair after a brief absence. If it takes a division bell to get him back there, well perhaps that's for the good of the House and everyone else that's in it.

I'd like to comment briefly on three or four items and ask the Attorney General to comment on them.

While he was speaking earlier in debate, he made a reference to the need for more legally trained judges, particularly in the rural areas of the Province of British Columbia. Now I agree with him that this is a necessary direction in which to proceed, but as one who comes from a rural area, I know the difficulty we have in finding adequately trained people in the law profession to go into those areas, let alone people who may be in the judiciary, to settle there. There is also always the problem that even though you may want to appoint someone who has had a number of years of legal experience as a lawyer, if they are successful in their chosen field of law there's a reluctance on their part, of course, to abandon their practice and go to the bench.

I'd just like to have the Attorney General expand if he would, when he's speaking, on how he intends to accomplish what in my opinion is a very worthwhile objective, this matter of getting more legally trained people into the judiciary and therefore providing all areas of the province with a higher level of expertise on the bench.

I note that the Hon. Attorney General commented on the increase of $1.5 million in the field of legal aid. He specifically referred to civil law, to neighbourhood law offices, duty councils and Indian court workers. I would wonder if for the benefit of Members in the House when he is on his feet he'd comment a little more specifically on the areas that he intends to go into in this respect.

I noticed that he indicated need to revise the Small Mortgage Loan Act, and I would hope that he would comment on that in a general way at least when he is on his feet, indicating to us what he has in mind.

He indicated a concern about not only the number of real estate salesmen and the number of people taking real estate courses in the Province of British Columbia, but also the high mortality rate, in terms of those who graduated from the course, as related to the people who actually enrolled. There is over a 50 per cent failure which, I agree, is too high.

The indication was that perhaps there should be some pre-licensing course for real estate salesmen. I think that's a point well taken. In other industries you have, quite often, either pre-licensing courses or a preliminary licence that is issued for a period of six months or a year, during which time you must complete a study course to the satisfaction of the department, before you're granted a full time licence. I would hope that he would comment further on that when he's replying to some of the questions that are put to him this morning.

Now I would like to deal specifically with one matter of which I know the Attorney General is aware. It's been brought to the attention of his department, but to my knowledge at this particular time the department, although they have investigated the matter, have done nothing about it. It's a matter which involves, according to a statutory declaration, and affidavit that I have, police harassment at least and possibly police brutality in the arresting of an individual in the Province of British Columbia.

I refer, Mr. Attorney General, to a letter you received January 17 from a Mrs. Gordon Erikson of New Westminster, bringing to your attention a case which involved her son in arrest at New Westminster by the RCMP, and bringing to your attention the fact that she felt it was false arrest and that her son was manhandled by the police at the time that he was arrested.

I would like to quote a few excerpts from the affidavit that was signed by her son, one Leonard K. Erikson, of 7904 Rosewood Avenue. This affidavit was sworn before a notary on January 15, 1973.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Is it before the courts?

MR. SMITH: It's not before the courts, no. Not to my knowledge.

[ Page 949 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: If the Hon. Member is looking for a law case, perhaps this is one he could act on, although I would say that the people themselves have the responsibility for choosing their own lawyer.

Anyway, the affidavit reads in part:

"When I arrived at the RCMP office in Port Coquitlam, at that time it was indicated that the man went there to lay a charge against another specific individual. I asked to see the prosecutor, Mr. Sims. I was told by the clerk to go and sit in the waiting room.

I'd been waiting there for about 10 minutes when two police officers by the names of Corporal Keiz and Constable Morgan came in and asked for Mr. Erikson. I answered that I was Leonard Erikson. Corporal Keiz then said that I was to go with them to see the prosecutor.

When we reached one of the halls leading downstairs, Corporal Keiz told me that I was under arrest for non-support of my children for $100 per month, for the months of January, February, March, April and May of the year of 1972. I told him that I had the receipts at home to prove that I had paid for the support of my children. He, Corporal Keiz, told me that I was lying and that he was under orders to arrest me, and I would be imprisoned for 30 days in Oakalla. The two officers then took me downstairs to the cells and told me to give them my belt and everything out of my pockets.

I told them I wanted to make a telephone call and I tried to telephone my father at his business number but the line was busy. I then tried to telephone my lawyer and that line was also busy.

By this time there were four officers standing around me. When one of the officers told me that I was to go into the cell I protested that I had to let someone know where I was in order to get the mistake of the charge corrected.

The four officers grabbed me. One officer pulled my belt and in doing so tore two belt loops from my pants. The other three officers removed everything from my pants pockets.

The next thing I knew I was being pulled backwards, face-up, with my arms and thrown backwards across a cot with my lower back striking the edge of the steel bed frame, and I blacked out as my head hit the cement.

When I regained consciousness I had extreme pain in my back and could not move my back or legs.

Later a man who said he was a doctor felt my pulse and told me I was all right.

I told him about my back and legs but he did not look at them. The doctor then signed a paper which the police were shoving at him."

It goes on to indicate that the man did have a severe contusion in the neck which was later verified by a doctor; that actually the force of the fall did fracture a bone in the back of his neck, and that he was not able to move; that for the time being at least he was partially paralyzed from that particular incident.

The affidavit indicates that he had in fact made payment through the courts for the payment on behalf of support of his children; that the money had been paid into the courts; that certainly from that standpoint there was no reason for the officers to arrest him.

He was later released. But at the time he was still in bad shape physically and had to be helped out of the police station into the car by his parents who finally located where he was, even though they didn't know at the time what had happened or where he had gone. He was not allowed to make a contact outside of the two telephone calls he originally tried to put through and found that the telephone lines were busy.

It would seem to me, Mr. Attorney General, that when this case was brought to the attention of your department, you would have proceeded with a thorough investigation of what happened. The man did suffer a disability. It's a proven fact by affidavits that he has, signed by expert medical advice, that he was roughly handled. There's a question that perhaps the arrest was a false arrest to begin with, in that they did not allow him to prove the fact that he had paid the money that he was required to pay for the support of his children into the courts before they placed him in the jail cells.

I would hope that the Attorney General, who I'm sure must be aware of this case — and I am sure that the Attorney General, from what I have seen of him, is a man of compassion — would be prepared to comment on the action that is presently pending by the department of the Attorney General, or what actions he intends to take on behalf of a man who I feel was badly mistreated by the police authorities in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to discuss a couple of items this morning, Mr. Chairman, with the Hon. Attorney General; first of all as to whether or not he's going to inform the public of British Columbia this morning that he's going to be bringing in a right to sue the Crown.

It is no privilege, Mr. Chairman, for a citizen to have the same rights against his government as his government has against him; but it is a right denied in the Province of British Columbia, It is a right that continues to be denied in the Province of British

[ Page 950 ]

Columbia. I would tend to say, Mr. Chairman, that we've had about the lowest "Dow-Jones" of law reform of any province in Canada. It's high time — more than high time, it's critical time — that this right now be given to our citizens.

Even more particularly should it be given in view of the very drastic steps that are being taken by the socialistic government…

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

MR. GARDOM: What do you mean, order? Don't you think they're taking drastic steps, my friend? A "drastic-step" bill? Oh. Well, I'm glad of that. I haven't seen that bill as yet.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, the point that I wish to make: by virtue of the expropriative action that is being taken by this Government, the citizens in the Province of British Columbia are denied the right and the access to the courts to challenge this awesome power of this socialistic Government.

I'd like to say a couple of words about the ever-increasing trend, Mr. Chairman, towards taking disputes between citizens away from the courts and giving them to some independent tribunal or arbitration board to resolve. Most of this I think has come about, Mr. Chairman, by virtue of the fact of the time that it takes to get things through court, and does not necessarily depend upon the cost.

Often people who elect to take the arbitration course, Mr. Chairman, even though they may have to pay an arbitration board upwards of, say, $1,000 a day and even hire counsel themselves — they could have had the election of going to court and having a trial within the four walls of a court where the judge charges about $5 a day for use of his courtroom.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, quite tragic indeed that we have spent all of this time — in fact centuries of time — building up a progressive court system with qualified judges and then finding the situation developing of them perhaps only hearing these enormously difficult and enormously large cases, such as the B.C. Hydro and power construction case, with the vast majority of disputes between citizens being relegated to tribunals which are inadequately regulated — which I am going to say a few words about in a moment — and inadequately staffed.

These tribunals, Mr. Chairman, by virtue of not having a clearcut process of administrative procedure in the Province of British Columbia, can result in bringing about expensive appeals because of very basic errors by particular board at some time.

Governments have also, Mr. Chairman — and this is a regretful point which could be cured effectively if the citizens had the right to sue the Crown — been able to get around this type of thing in the past by preventing anyone from questioning the decisions of boards; for example, the Workmen's Compensation Board and the Labour Relations Board. This seems to be a very poor way of providing justice to our citizens.

We do have the courthouses, we do have the judges and we have a very good body of law — although it's certainly in need of reform and updating at all times. I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that we should let all of this go by virtue of the fact that we have not paid enough attention to the very machinery of justice.

I do feel, Mr. Chairman, that we're going to run into a situation of having more cases. The Attorney General has got to start planning right now to request an increase in our Supreme Court bench. Because I think by virtue of the legislation that you're introducing — the Companies Act and the Land Commission Act, to name just two — I tend to think that you're going to see quite a bit of court congestion as a result of these statutes. So I would commend the Attorney General to consider those points.

Now here is one that is dishwater-dry I think insofar as the public are concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dishwater-dry?

MR. GARDOM: Dishwasher-dry — that is bad…It's early in the morning. I apologize.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dishwater-wet.

MR. GARDOM: Dishwater-wet. Somebody's going to say I'm all wet. Who's the first one to say that? You're all asleep at the switch this morning or you'd have said that.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, this is rather a dry area in the field of our law and one that has been exceptionally weak; that is the rules for procedure in administrative bodies. I am going to advocate, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General gives serious thought — and if the law reform committee has not yet got this under study, that he instruct them to put it under study — that we have in the Province of British Columbia an administrative procedure Act.

The ground rules are very, very unclear here in the very many boards and tribunals, both from the point of view of those who are doing the administering and those who are being administered. For example in the Department of Agriculture we've got boards such as this: the milk board, the broiler marketing board, coast vegetable marketing board, cranberry marketing board; egg, fruit, grape, interior vegetable marketing boards; mushroom, oyster and turkey marketing boards.

In the department of the Attorney General we've got the Liquor Control Board; in the Department of Finance, the Assessment Appeal Board; in the Department of Highways the Highway Board; in the Department of Labour we find five boards: the Labour Relations Board, the Workmen's Compen-

[ Page 951 ]

sation Board, the Human Rights Commission, the Board of Industrial Relations — and formerly the Mediation Commission.

In the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources we find the Pollution Control Board; Municipal Affairs has the B.C. Housing Management Commission, the Municipal Financing Authority; the Provincial Secretary has got five commissions, and on and on and on. There seem to be 29 major boards, Mr. Chairman, and there must be dozens more of minor ones that are regulating the lives and the economies and economics of B.C. citizens.

They have extremely wide powers, these tribunals, but few — in fact next to none, if any — rules of procedure. The rules of procedure that they have, Mr. Chairman, are very widely varied.

This is the premise that I wish to make here. The four tests to a good law are these: (1) Is it certain? (2) Is it concise? (3) Is it clear? and (4) Is there a very simple and inexpensive procedure to get to it?

Now we find the latter test through the court system, but we do not necessarily find it through the administrative system. I would say indeed it is the converse. I would say that in the majority of cases not only the people who are appearing before these tribunals are unaware of any kind of procedure but the tribunal itself does not have any whatsoever.

So I say that we should have in the Province of British Columbia an administrative procedure Act. It should include eight basic principles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. There is a bill on the order paper, No. 84, intituled Administrative Tribunals Appeal Act. Therefore, I would ask that you not consider the substance of this bill.

MR. GARDOM: I'm very glad you drew that to my attention, Mr. Chairman. What number was that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 84.

MR. GARDOM: Good. I'd like to take a look at it. It only deals with appeals, and I'm not talking about appeals. I'm talking about administrative procedure for administrative boards. This bill is on right of appeal from an administrative board. I'm glad you mentioned that, because that's just one restricted side and I'll be happy not to refer to it, save and except maybe a sentence.

The statute should include eight basic points, one of which is what the Hon. Chairman referred to. The first point, Mr. Chairman, is that all people whose rights may be affected must receive notice of hearing. The administrative rules must be published.

(2) Particulars of the allegations should be furnished — like a statement of claim that you find in a lawsuit — giving particulars of the allegations.

(3) There must be a proper hearing — and I do hope I'm having the ears of the Attorney General to these eight very vital and interesting points. Am I? Good. There must be a proper hearing in public, excluding of course, Mr. Chairman, cases where the public security is involved, but only in that situation. The proper hearing in public must furnish the parties the right to call and subpoena witnesses and documents and to cross-examine so a case can be fully presented and argued. There should be a record maintained, like there is in the Supreme Court or County Court proceedings and like there is in this very Legislature itself, and counsel should be permitted to represent people.

(4) Decisions must be rendered by those who heard the evidence; abolish absentee decisions.

(5) Reasons for judgments or reasons for findings must be published.

(6) There must be a right of appeal — the point that you referred to me a moment ago, Mr. Chairman.

(7) There should be one simple form of application to the court if the administrative tribunal refuses to exercise its statutory power or happens to follow an incorrect procedure.

(8) The power should be granted for each tribunal to incorporate detailed rules particular to its own function.

Now this procedure and this problem is not new; nor is it unconsidered, Mr. Chairman. In 1939 — which goes back quite a way — President Roosevelt ordered an investigation into procedural reform in the field of administrative law.

In 1961 the Administrative Procedure Act was prepared and adopted in some 25 American states.

The Donnemore Committee considered the matter in England in 1932; the Franks committee in 1955; New Zealand has measures along the lines I've been talking about. What I've said is essentially a compilation of the recommendation of the Ontario Royal Commission into Civil Rights in 1968.

So I don't think we need another study. We just need the Hon. Attorney General to get off his oars and bring in an administrative procedure Act in the Province of British Columbia. This should have come in many, many years ago and why it never did is quite beyond me.

There's a great quotation which I would like the Attorney General to remember. I quote Mr. Justice Frankfurter when he said this: "The history of liberty has largely been the history of procedural safeguards." Hence what I'm asking for here, Mr. Chairman, is just those kinds of procedural safeguards for administrative bodies — in order that we can define the ballpark, see the game is played in the open with a proper set of rules and certainly with an impartial referee.

I'd like to say a few words about legal aid and ask the Hon. Attorney General just how far this legal aid

[ Page 952 ]

programme is developing in the province, and to what extent he has had his negotiations with the Minister of Justice in Ottawa.

There's no question, Mr. Chairman, that one characteristic of the law that has burdened it from the very outset has been its inaccessibility to the economically underprivileged. This gap has been closing, but far from significantly, and only as a result of piecemeal efforts by individuals and private organizations. It's high time that our society took the position that legal aid is not only a social measure but is a democratic right.

It was way back in 1838 that Charles Dickens, through the mouth of the beadle in Oliver Twist, said, "The law is an ass." I would say, Mr. Chairman, surely it's the height of assininity in this day and age not to create a means of access to the law that is equal to all.

There is no quarrel, Mr. Chairman, with justice being done within the walls of the law courts, but it is very little comfort to those who are unable to get through the door.

We have been talking about legal aid in this party and the New Democratic Party talked a lot about legal aid when they were in Opposition too. This has been going on for a number of years in the Province of British Columbia. We feel there should be a comprehensive, province-wide legal aid plan fashioned on the Ontario programme — a form of Judicare. There would have to be proof of need and it should be civil, certainly, as well as criminal. I'd like the Attorney General to comment on that.

Before sitting down, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refer to one other item. This is something that may be somewhat difficult to incorporate but something that is desperately necessary. This would be trailblazing legislation, I suppose, of its kind in Canada. It is to go ahead and establish a family forum for our domestic courts.

This family forum, Mr. Chairman, should have far, far less stress on the word and the role of "court," which in the matrimonial sense today still conveys a feeling of antagonism and bitterness and, in the case of the litigant, often a most unbelievable departure from credibility.

The family forum, Mr. Chairman, and the concept of the family forum, should connote something that would be more of tolerance and forgiveness and compromise. In the sum total it should be a means for the better understanding and better solution of all forms of matrimonial strife.

The process has got to be modernized and I would say with a far greater latitude in the Rules of Evidence, still leaving its weight for determination in the hands of the arbiter and continuing with rights of appeal, which are fine and dandy. But let's do away with these half-day arguments on admissibility as to whether it is hearsay or it isn't, or whether it happens to fall within the very multitude of exceptions.

The atmosphere — and this is the main point — the atmosphere should be changed from one of fright and one of combat, which it is today in the matrimonial field, to one of sympathetic informality. The whole spectrum of domestic problems should be phased into this one family forum, It should be as bright and as pleasant as possible. It should be regarded more in the light of a clinic dispensing cures and remedies for the various aspects of family difficulties, rather than a court of last resort.

In the past, Mr. Chairman, this is what it has been. We've been following a surgical procedure, essentially, as opposed to a procedure of preventive medicine. I would the forum should concern itself with the totality of family problems — for example: the less serious assaults, failure to maintain wives or children, actions for the division of matrimonial property, securing support for unwed mothers, adoption, the handling of delinquents, claims for the custody and care of children, actions for the dissolution of the marital tie, by annulment or divorce or what have you.

Today, Mr. Chairman, these unhappy people find themselves in about three forums. I think that's wrong. They can find themselves, say, in the Family Court for support; they can find themselves in the Supreme Court for custody and for guardianship, and they can find themselves in the County Court for division of the spoils of the matrimonial experience or suits on separation agreements.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

It's not just enough to have arbiters in the new service. The new service should be staffed by trained professionals — psychiatrists and social workers, marriage and youth counsellors — as I said at the outset of these remarks, people who would be practising preventive medicine rather than just first visit surgery. They would provide a great aid for the judge as well as for the whole suffering family too.

These things cannot be done today, Ms. Chairwoman, under the existing framework that we have. We have excellent judges, but the antique concepts and mechanics that they are obliged to work under prevent them totally from doing the job that I am talking about. At the present time, the route is for the judge to decide a winner. The concept today is totally adversary. I suggest that it should be more of the inquiry kind of concept.

In order to do this, Ms. Chairwoman, we definitely need a re-orientation of attitude. We certainly need a departure from the very tired old methods that we've been following. We need remedial and counselling services. I say that the sooner we can get to having a family forum to encompass all of these items that I've been talking about in the Province of British

[ Page 953 ]

Columbia, we will have made the most startling advance into something that is positive and something that will be of assistance, and something that is needed in Canada.

There have been trial projects, I gather, in the United States of America and I understand that they're working most effectively. I would appreciate having the comments of the Hon. Attorney General on certain of these items that I've discussed just now.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Ms. Chairperson, At long last the Opposition gets to see how it's done. (Laughter). Do you want to bring some more of your people in? The Hon. Liberal leader will be taking notes, of course.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you want that case — or don't you?

MR. LAUK: You can catch it later in Hansard. Ms. Chairperson, I would like to comment on two or three things.

First of all, I would like to say that I am going to vote in favour of vote 16.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was an agonizing decision.

MR. LAUK: Because I think that the present Attorney General is almost as good as his father and he has every opportunity of doing even better.

There are several things that I wanted to raise. I want to first of all say how encouraged I am with the conversations that I've had with the Hon. Attorney General and his department with respect to legal aid and with respect generally to the administration of justice. There are many problems in this province and I don't think I'm going to play the game of blaming it on the former administration.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You admit it's a game?

MR. LAUK: In this case only, it would be a game. I feel that problems about the administration of justice — although there was severe neglect — were perhaps not too readily understood by previous Attorney Generals. I can assure this House that the present Attorney General does understand the problems involving legal aid, involving the high population of Indians in prisons and involving the prestige of the provincial court Bench.

I know that the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and I probably felt on many occasions that provincial court judges shouldn't have been paid at all. That depended upon the decision that we were receiving at the time. But after the emotion of the day subsided, I think both he and I and most of us who are familiar with the operation of the provincial court in this province are a little disturbed at the pay and the working conditions that these ladies and gentlemen receive.

They are people who, in many cases, have sacrificed lucrative private practice to go and serve the public in a different way. Presently, Ontario judges of the same level of court are receiving more. I would ask the Attorney General to conduct a through review of these salaries. They don't have any bargaining rights. They don't have a union so that they can sit down and discuss working conditions and their salaries with the government. I think that they have had shabby treatment in the past.

Their salaries and working conditions, I must say, Ms. Chairperson, directly relate to the respect with which the public holds the courts and, in fact, the degree of comfort with which they sit on the bench themselves. So I would ask the Hon. Attorney General to conduct an immediate review of that situation through the new Chief Judge, His Honour Laurie Brehan.

I want to touch upon something that I consider much more serious, in the sense that it is of serious consequence to us today. It's a case that arose during the Christmas period, during a trial up north in Quesnel. I want to emphasize that this particular case is not the exception. There are several cases similar to this that have occurred over the years.

It is a problem not with the Department of the Attorney General. It's not a problem with the administration of justice generally, perhaps, except that I will suggest one or two changes that can be made. But it is one of those unfortunate problems that has existed for all too long and must end, I'm reading from a newspaper that was sent to me. It was in the Williams Lake Tribune. There's no date on it, but it reported a trial that took place on December 19. I know that the Hon. Attorney General has a copy of this and has expressed the same grave concern over this situation as I do now.

A jury of 11 men and one woman deliberated for over four hours December 19, before finding three young Quesnel men not guilty of forcibly seizing and indecently assaulting a young Indian girl.

Testifying during the nearly week-long trial were the 17-year-old Nazko girl allegedly assaulted; another 14-year-old girl of the Cluscas, her companion the evening prior to the alleged incident; and another person, Ivan Squallian, aged 20, of Redstone, her companion at the time she was allegedly seized. There were no defence witnesses called at this trial.

During the evidence, it was described that one of the accused stopped a car, in which there were three persons, got out and attempted to drag the victim into the car. On the following day, the victim, the same girl, and a boyfriend were hitchhiking along the

[ Page 954 ]

road. A car with the same three occupants stopped. The girl was seized, taken and assaulted.

There was evidence also of a female companion of the three accused persons, which tended, accordingly to the article, to support the evidence of the prosecution. There was the evidence of two confessions each from at least two accused, both contradictory, which would lend corroboration and support for the evidence of the prosecution. The three accused were acquitted. The 12 jurors were white.

I will say no more about this except that it's an outrage. It's a travesty of justice. I haven't read the transcript. I don't know whether the Attorney General's department has. I'm not saying single out this case, but I will say this. We have to realistically sit down and review the jury system in this province. If we can't rely on the RCMP or our sheriffs' officers to try and balance these juries, especially in the specific instance when they're trying Indians or when their victims are Indians, we're going to have to write it into the law. Thank you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Ms. Chairman, can I answer a couple of questions briefly? Then I happen to be informed that the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has an urgent matter that he wants to bring up. So I though I'd just answer a couple of the questions. It may be that the committee would agree with your recognizing him as the next speaker.

Just an answer briefly to the last speaker. That trial…. .

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Your leader has been on his feet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Which leader?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There shouldn't be any levity about the case my friend referred to because that was a serious case.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not serious.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, that's up to the committee. I'm making a suggestion.

It was very hard for me to understand the verdict brought in by the jury in that case. Yet I think it is a matter that has to receive further study.

We have instructed the sheriff's officers, when Indians are involved in a case, to try to have Indians on the jury. On the other hand we are under the panel system where the defence can stand up and challenge this person, that person and that person and it is very hard under those circumstances still to have Indian people on the jury where Indian people are involved.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm not sure of the dates, but I don't think there is any chance of an appeal. It's a verdict by a jury on the facts, and it is very hard to appeal that kind of thing.

I will mention, before I answer the other questions of Hon. Members in the field of policy, that in respect to the complaint brought up by the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) addressed to us by Mrs. Gordon Erikson, I have had a full report from the police officers concerned and it varies very substantially. It is only fair to say is. I am not going to read the contents of it, but it varies very substantially with the report of the complainant, As I say, I don't want to read that, because this evidence has not been tested out. We have now informed Mrs. Erikson that the police disagree with this version of the facts.

In a case like this, nobody has to come and see me. But I will make this offer to Mrs. Erikson, that if she wants to come to Victoria and see me, it is this kind of case, I think, that deserves at least half an hour of my time or maybe more. That is up to her whether she wants to do that. If she does want to come to Victoria, I'll set aside the time and I will see her personally so she can see both reports.

Then if she wants to take matters further that will be entirely up to her. If there is a problem of the expense of the ferry, that is a very small detail really in the circumstance. I would be glad to see that she gets it.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I would like the House to advise the Chair if it would give the right to speak next to the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I don't think you should question…

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The chair recognizes the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman. I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for yielding his position in this debate to me, I promise to be very brief.

When speaking in the estimates of the Hon. Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) two days ago, I raised with him the matter of conversion of rental apartment units to condominium ownership units and I gave a specific example which had occurred in my constituency. That particular case

[ Page 955 ]

was one which involved an apartment largely occupied by older fixed income people.

Last evening I was advised of a similar situation which is occurring in the municipality of Saanich on Tillicum Road. This morning I met with a number of the tenants of the apartment complex there.

I wish to present these matters to the Hon. Attorney General with a suggestion that he might consider implementing. I might say, first of all, that the people have been in touch with the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) in his capacity as mayor of the municipality and that he will be meeting with them this afternoon. Ms. Chairwoman, I refer to a complex which was known as Burnside Garden Village and is now called Parkside Place.

On November 27, 1972, a letter, on the letterhead of Nacel Properties Limited, was sent to each of the tenants. I have copies for the Attorney General. I will read this letter.

"I am pleased to announce that our company has purchased Burnside Garden Village. On November 30, 1972, we will change the name of the development to Parkside Place. We wish to assure all tenants that Mr. George Croft and staff will continue to manage the property in order that we may maintain the high standard of operation that has been associated with this project over the past year.

"As soon as weather permits we will be decorating and repairing the exterior of each building and all interior common areas. It is our intention to make Parkside Place a more attractive place to live.

"Parkside Place will be converted from a rental project to a self-owned condominium. We believe that we can offer the present tenants one of the finest family condominiums in Victoria.

"Condominium living offers to the owner all the advantages of apartment living along with the financial advantages of owning your own home. The present government regulations make it advantageous for each person to own their own apartment.

"If you should not wish to purchase a suite, you may continue to lease your present accommodation at existing rents. Your present lease will be fully honoured and extended.

"I will be contacting you to arrange an appointment at your convenience and to discuss your personal interests. For your convenience, I will be residing in suite 370, starting December 4. You may also leave any message with Mr. George Croft at the office."

It is signed by Mr. Gene Haibeck, Manager of Nacel Properties Limited.

Ms. Chairwoman, this apartment development is occupied by people of very modest means. As a matter of fact, two of the ladies with whom I spoke this morning have husbands who are unemployed and they are in receipt of welfare.

Subsequent to November 27, 1972, a further letter was received by these tenants. Unfortunately I do not have a copy but I am advised that the import of that letter was to say that if the suite that he occupied were sold, the tenant would have 60 days to get out but if he couldn't find accommodation, this company would make other accommodation available in the same complex. They were also advised that someone would visit them about the terms of sale. This letter gave to these tenants the right of first refusal to purchase their particular suites.

Since that date no one has approached any of these tenants with respect to offers for sale and on February 16, 1973, this further letter came. It again is on the letterhead of Nacel Properties Limited:

"As you are probably aware, the suites in Parkside Place are being sold as condominium units under the Strata Title Act. Many two- and three-bedroom suites were sold to our existing tenants and all the vacant suites were sold to non-residents of Parkside Place. Our low prices have created a brisk sales demand and in order to make suites available to our purchasers, we are regretfully asking you to vacate by March 31, 1973.

"If vacating by March 31 creates many serious difficulties for you, please telephone me at 386-0070 to discuss the situation personally. Thank you for your tenancy with us. Yours truly."

And again it is signed by Mr. Haibeck.

Ms. Chairwoman, the fact of the matter is that having received that last notice, given in light however of the earlier letter which indicated to these people that if they didn't wish to purchase they could continue to lease at existing rents, many of these tenants, being unable to afford to even contemplate the purchase of their apartments, have gone out and attempted to find alternative accommodations. They are doing so, as I pointed out, by reason of their receipt of notice that they are to vacate by March 31, 1973.

Some of them have been fortunate in finding accommodation. They are now advised however, and some of them wish to move out this weekend, that they cannot move out unless they pay 30 days rent in lieu of notice. One woman who moved out in the last few days, after the moving truck had arrived, had her apartment locked by the manager of the complex so she could not remove her furniture. The door was not unlocked until she in fact paid, the 30 days rent in lieu of notice.

This is a serious tragedy for these people, particularly as they all have children. I don't wish to give the names of the individuals, but the occupant of suite 3566 has two children, 3574 has two children, 3560

[ Page 956 ]

has three children, 3544 has three children, 3562 has two children, 3550 has three children. It is extremely difficult for these people with families of this size to find rental accommodation which will accept them with their children.

Now, further detail came to my attention during the discussion this morning. The occupant of suite No. 3570 was willing to buy but was told that she couldn't buy because she had children and this condominium was to be turned into an adult-only condominium operation.

These people face an obligation today of finding alternative accommodation if they can. They face the moving costs, they face the obligation right now — if they find accommodation — to pay one month's rent in lieu of notice plus the cost of moving the telephone and utilities which total about $13. And none of them are financially able to withstand this kind of economic blow.

As I pointed out, the original letter indicating that this was to be a condominium operation was sent on November 27. I also find that two tenants who occupy suites 3558 and 3546 moved in in January and February and were given three months leases and were not advised that this building was being turned into a condominium operation. They, too, have received the same notice to vacate.

This is a serious and difficult problem. It is a difficult one, I appreciate, for the landlord as well as the tenants. But it is a problem for which our laws as they presently stand do not appear to provide any easy, equitable relief.

I suggest, Ms. Chairwoman, to the Hon, Attorney General that this matter be placed immediately in the hands of his consumer affairs officers and one of the solicitors of the Department of the Attorney General for investigation. And that following such investigation, the Attorney General and the cabinet in this assembly give their immediate attention to providing the relief which the circumstances may indicate.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. the Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On the matter raised by the Hon. Member; we agree, of course, that the department will look into it immediately. I hope the Member will make his information in fuller form available to one of my officers.

Now beyond that, I think I have to say what the government is going to do in this field. This seems to be a day when everybody is asking us to announce legislation. I'm not sure if it's positively out of order on estimates, but it's bad form. But we're doing it.

We're going to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to the kind of notice that has to be given in these conversions and the kind of relief in moving expenses that might be accorded a tenant.

We also have under consideration amendments to the Strata Titles Act, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to give municipalities some control over conversions.

Under the kind of procedure we've been following in this House, we can pass the bills possibly reasonably soon. But royal assent usually does not come until the end of the session which might be May 15…. I don't know when the end of the session might be. (Laughter).

But possibly, when the Hon. Member is speaking to my department, we might bear in mind, whether in terms of expediting bills or whether in terms of making it clear to these people that the government is ready to proceed in terms of protecting tenants in these conversion situations, if there is any way in which retroactive legislation would be fair — bearing in mind that we're now making a ministerial statement that we're concerned about it — they, from this point on, should be careful that they protect the rights of those tenants in the meantime. If that's fair within our laws we won't rule that out either.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River. And before he speaks, the chair wishes to thank him for his graciousness in relinquishing his position in the speaking order. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: You've left me speechless. (Laughter).

Madame Chairwoman, we're discussing a very important estimate at this time. We're discussing the granting of the salary to the chief law enforcement officer of the Province of British Columbia.

Now, I think as we discuss this we should look back upon some of his actions since he's become the chief law enforcement officer.

One of these first actions he undertook after becoming Minister was to cancel certain charges that had been laid against certain construction unions — unions that had openly defied the laws of this province.

I wasn't overly pleased with the reason given by the Attorney General to the cancellation of these charges — the particular law which they violated will be thrown out or amended. Had he said "We don't have sufficient evidence to pursue the defiance which was apparent," then I'd have been satisfied. For him to say: "We're going to throw the law out. They violated the law so we're not going to prosecute," appears to me, really, that the Attorney General was anxious to assist his friends. And I don't think that defiance of the law, be they friends of the Attorney General, should be overlooked.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Friends had nothing to do with it. They weren't my friends.

[ Page 957 ]

MR. CHABOT: There was tremendous haste on your part to throw out these charges.

We read from time to time in the newspapers the sham battle that is going on between Mr. Haynes and the provincial government. And make no mistake about that; it really is a sham battle because Mr. Haynes is the chief bagman for the New Democratic Party. And in his role in collecting political funds on behalf of your party he has finally received his payment.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member imputing any improper motives?

MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. I am saying that Mr. Haynes is the chief bagman for the New Democratic Party. I'm just making a statement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it's untrue.

MR. CHABOT: I'm making a statement. He's being paid off for his active financial accumulation of funds when he was appointed not too long ago to the judicial council. Now there are people in British Columbia who are not overly happy with that particular appointment, Mr. Attorney General. There's an article here that says;

"Provincial court judges are beside themselves, with some justification, over the NDP government's appointment of Ray Haynes as one of the two lay members of the judicial council who could conceivably wind up making recommendations to discipline the judges.

"The appointment which is apparently designed to indicate that there is nothing personal in the government's current feud with the B.C. Federation of Labour is viewed as a disaster in some legal circles.

"Nobody can object to Haynes being in position to screen appointments to the bench. He probably has more smarts than many people who could be named to the post.

"But even in the promised land when labour-management relations are supposed to be better, the chances are still six, two and even that Haynes, in his professional role as Fed. Secretary, or somebody with whom he is associated professionally can wind up in front of a provincial court judge.

"His new role as a member of a body with power to recommend disciplinary action against the judges could place the judge in a ridiculous position. In fact almost any layman who is in an action might create this conflict.

"The judges would prefer to see the disciplinary portion of a judicial council function placed in the hands of higher court judges.

"I'm wondering whether the Attorney General would give some consideration to this recommendation of taking the matter out of the hands of laymen and especially laymen who are friends of this Government."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On a point of privilege, Ms. Chairwoman. If my friend, The Hon. Member for Columbia River, is making a charge in terms of a pay-off or something of that kind, let him put a motion of privilege — I think the proper motion would be one of contempt — on the order paper of this Legislature.

If he is not prepared to take that course, let him shut up about it because what he is saying is completely and totally untrue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CHABOT: Madam Chairman, I have conclusive evidence that Mr. Haynes was counselling certain individuals in this province to defy the laws of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: What I'm asking you as Attorney General is to charge him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Give me the evidence, I'll look at it.

MR. CHABOT: A telegram on July 25 was sent to all recording secretaries of unions in British Columbia, and it says:

"THE ELECTION HAS FINALLY BEEN CALLED. WITH THE RECENT ACCELERATION OF THE BENNETT GOVERNMENT'S WAR ON THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT, INCLUDING THE UNPRECEDENTED RCMP RAIDS, AND WITH LABOUR MINISTER CHABOT'S PROMISE TO BRING IN LEGISLATION TO ELIMINATE UNION HIRING HALLS AND OTHER ESSENTIAL TRADE UNION RIGHTS, IT SHOULD BE EVIDENT TO EVERY TRADE UNIONIST THAT THE BENNETT GOVERNMENT MUST BE DEFEATED NOW.

BY CONVENTION DECISION, THE FEDERATION WILL BE ASSISTING TRADE UNIONISTS AND OTHER NDP CANDIDATES. THE ASSISTANCE MUST BE PROVIDED WITHOUT DELAY. WE URGE YOU TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FEDERATION'S POLITICAL ACTION FUND WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.

TO ENABLE US TO GET THE BALL ROLLING, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO ADVISE BY RETURN WIRE WHAT WE MAY TENTATIVELY EXPECT FROM YOUR UNION. WHILE DIRECT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IS TO BE CENTRALIZED THROUGH THE FEDERATION, YOU MAY ALSO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF MATERIAL AND MANPOWER TO THE CANDIDATE IN YOUR AREA.

LET US TAKE NO CHANCES. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE THIS GOVERNMENT RE-

[ Page 958 ]

ELECTED SO THEY CAN PASS FURTHER LEGISLATION AIMED AT WEAKENING THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT.

(SIGNED) RAY HAYNES

SECRETARY TREASURER, B.C. FEDERATION OF LABOUR."

Now, Mr. Haynes is counselling the unions to defy the laws of this province; to defy the laws of this province absolutely. And unions have openly admitted that they have defied the Labour Relations Act. Openly admitted it, while the Attorney General sits back and does nothing.

I want to know today, Mr. Attorney General, whether you're prepared to take legal action against the breaking of the laws of this province. Are you prepared to carry out an investigation — if you're not prepared to take legal action, on the basis of the violation of the Labour Relations Act by the trade unions of this province?

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Order please. Kindly address the chair.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Attorney General — any answers?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't mind what order the answers are given, but the other Hon. Member sat down.

MR. CHABOT: I asked you a simple question.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'm giving you an answer, as soon as you take your seat.

I've said what I've said about anything improper. Now if my friend wants to do that, take the proper course, it is fine with me.

Leaving that aside, you've asked me about the appointment of Ray Haynes to the judicial committee, a non-paying job of public service. He's appointed because he is secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and presumably one of the people — we want labour representation on there, right? We want it to be with this broad consultation with the trade union people.

We want people in the trade union movement involved in understanding the laws and observing the laws. There might be labour legislation or they might be criminal sanctions — you can't see them broken in one field and upheld in another, or winked at in another. So I think it's a valuable input that we should have labour representation on the traditional council. Now the make up of that council is Chief Judge Brahan the treasurer of the Law Society of B.C. or his nominee, two district judges, and they laymen.

Now in that kind of a council which is advisory, advisory only and non-paying, I welcome the appointment, the acceptance of the appointment, by Ray Haynes of that position. I think it's good that sections of a community actively coming into, sometimes, collision with the law should be part of the lawmaking and the judicial process. Why not?

Now so far as any charges…if my friend's got evidence that warrants action, submit it to my office. I've no objection to looking at things even if they happened in the past, that might warrant charges being laid. But you'll have to give me something better than that letter you read.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. CHABOT: I've read to the Attorney General a telegram in which Mr. Haynes has openly counselled the unions to break and defy the Labour Relations Act of this province. I'm asking him whether he is prepared to take legal action or investigate this matter.

I think it's serious. It's quite obvious by the telegram here that he collects money on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Is that the reason, Mr. Attorney General, you are unwilling to take legal action against Mr. Haynes? Is that the reason?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Send me the telegram, but it's not an offence to collect money for the New Democratic Party.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you think that you can charge somebody based on that telegram, I don't know what law school you went to. I don't think there's a charge there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Get some legal advice on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member asked me another question and I omitted to reply to it. You asked me about the dropping of charges. I'd just like to say, and I think I explained it at the time, that this was on the recommendation of the prosecutors, who in that case were George Cumming and Bruce McColl, in no sense NDPers. They said that because of legal difficulties the charges should be dropped. That was the reason they were dropped.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands):

[ Page 959 ]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few general observations and questions to the Attorney General and I hope they're within the purview of discussing his salary.

First of all, I do appreciate the actions taken by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) in meeting with some very concerned tenants, as he outlined fully. While the Attorney General, through you, Mr. Chairman, knows that municipalities have very little, if any, authority or ability at the moment to assist, I will offer in my office in the Municipal Hall this afternoon any assistance that the municipality can grant immediately in this particular instance, while the matter is being investigated by the more senior government.

It's also, Mr. Chairman, easy to be timid about dealing with the Attorney General's estimates in the presence of so many learned members of the bar in this House, but I am going to press on in any event.

I would like the Attorney General if he can to give us some comments a little later with respect to night courts, or evening courts as they may more properly be described, particularly in the greater Victoria area. It seems to me that there is a very real need for such a night court in the metropolitan region of Victoria for reasons that have been stated many times and in other areas.

The lawyers may not care too much for it, and judges perhaps may be a little unhappy, But I'm aware of men and women losing a number of hours of their employment and their payroll as a result of having to go to court for one reason or another, during the course of the day. I would commend consideration of something such as that in this area.

Others more competent than I have spoken on the crowding of court calendars, but I would underline the point which has been made today and previously in that regard.

May I also ask through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon. Attorney General spend a few moments outlining his philosophy regarding the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the province, and particularly in organized areas in municipalities or cities. The point has been made quite recently in fact that municipalities in British Columbia, some 12 of them I believe — I'm subject to minor correction on that — but about a dozen municipalities have their own police departments.

They are in effect subsidizing RCMP policing in other municipalities as well as over the province as a whole in unorganized or so-called unorganized areas. There's no question in my mind but that there must be greater financial assistance to municipalities directly related to their efforts to police the municipality concerned.

We can demonstrate rapidly escalating costs in local government throughout the province, in maintaining a police force which is efficient, which is up to strength and which is performing satisfactorily for the people of that particular city, town or district.

As an example, I'm going to quote Victoria city and the Municipality of Saanich, two reasonably large jurisdictions. Saanich with about 66,000 persons, and a police budget this year of something in the neighbourhood of $1.6 million. Now, Mr. Chairman, through you, that's a very large portion of any municipality's budget. There's no sign that its rate of climb is going to slow.

In Victoria city, checking the figures from quite recently, the actual budget for 1972 was approximately $1.9 million — Victoria city, with about 61,000 or 62,000 people.

This year, subject of course to cuts by the council or the police commission in final budget stage, the police budget for the City of Victoria could be about $2.3 million — that's roughly 14 mills on the general tax base, a very, very large percentage of the total operating budget for a municipality, Unfortunately we're in an era when the image of the policeman has suffered. This is not limited to greater Vancouver or greater Victoria or British Columbia, but across Canada and North America. The individual acts of harassment or thoughtlessness or roughness or brutality on the part of a single police officer attract the headlines. But it is often the case that one bad incident overrides many, many, day-in-and-day-out activities carried out by members of a police department, in and with the community, and those too often pass unnoticed.

In this area, as the Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) could explain, we have an organization called COSY, the city organization sponsoring youth. Another one is called SPOT, the Saanich Police Organization for Teens, working very, very well — quietly, not often attracting the front page or the lead story on a television newscast, but working regularly with the young people of the community.

I think the municipalities — and I trust the Attorney General, Mr. Chairman, through you, would agree — that the municipalities are attempting to recognize that there is now a new breed of police officer and that that type of candidate should be very carefully sought out when police departments are being added to. The phrase is rather trite, but I think it's extremely valid — "Brains, not brawn." We want the best possible men and women in our police departments.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And more training facilities.

MR. CURTIS: I'm coming to that, Mr. Attorney General. May I carry on?

We need more training facilities, as the Hon. Attorney General has indicated, but we also need…

[ Page 960 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CURTIS: Gee, I don't think I had carbons when I was writing this out.

We also need financial assistance in this training. A typical municipality now is taking advantage of the Canadian Police College for its senior and promising men, sending them to the college for six or eight weeks at a time. There is a form of subsidization at the federal level as a result, because their room and board charges are very low and the actual tuition charges are kept extremely low.

I think a typical and concerned municipality would also have a pretty fair programme of in-service training. I am sorry that it is no longer possible for a municipality to take full and logical advantage of the Vancouver Police Academy training. That was the case until very recently but, as I recall, the former Attorney General, or the former cabinet, terminated the programme of financial assistance in that particular instance.

We really want to see our police people given every opportunity to learn and keep up to date on such a wide variety of programmes and training fields in their work.

I would also like to speak for just a moment about an attitude concerning police commissions or boards of police commissioners. I think they should be encouraged, or required by provincial statute, to meet on a regular basis. It seems to me that in some municipalities and cities perhaps the police commissions meet two or three or four times a year.

They meet to have a cursory first look at the budget; they meet a little later to examine the budget in greater detail and to pass it on to the municipal council; then they probably meet again in the summer or fall if some particularly pressing matter comes before them. This isn't the rule but it does happen. I am quite sure that there are many instances where police commissions do not meet as regularly as I'm sure the Hon. Attorney General would like them to meet.

I think also they should — and I would be interested to learn if the Attorney General agrees — become more involved in the canvassing or the screening and final selection of candidates offering themselves in the police department. Perhaps too often they're simply prepared to receive a list of recommended candidates from the chief constable or someone else in a senior position in that police department, and to approve the list as it has been presented.

My personal philosophy is that really there is no more important position to be filled in local government than that of the police officer.

We have many individuals, men and women, offering themselves for work in police departments, but the final screening gets down to very, very few indeed who would be suitable to join the force. Over the course of three or four or five years of replacing members of a police department and adding new members to a police department, you really can, if you're careful, produce a very fine department. Or, in reverse, by carelessly adding candidates, you can gravely interfere with the quality of that police department.

Mr. Chairman, I think there are many other parts of the estimates which others more competent than I will want to touch upon, but I appreciate the Attorney General listening and making a few notes on these points.

We generally approve of the attitudes and actions thus far of the Hon. Attorney General. I look forward to hearing him answer these and other questions in the course of the next few hours of debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many of us in this chamber are not lawyers, we are not conversant with the niceties of legal jargon, the subtleties of law. But we have to deal, in our capacity as Members of this assembly, with problems of our constituents who are dealing with the law.

Hopefully only about once in our lives we may have to go through probate proceedings. It has been brought to my attention on several occasions that there seems to be a lack in the probate department in the ability to have wills probated. They seem to take interminable lengths of time. During those times people suffer.

I received a letter from a woman whose husband had died last August. They had joint wills. According to their lawyer, there was no difficulty as far as the estate went in who owned what, and there were no problems existing at all.

However, in February this woman had still not received any of the benefits of the estate. I don't know what she was living on.

I turned the letter over to the Attorney General's Department and asked them to advise her what could be done, how this could be speeded up, how she could obtain access to the funds in the estate. I asked them to advise me of their reply to her.

I received the reply and, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't understand it. If I couldn't understand the language, she most certainly couldn't. It was gobbledegook.

On another occasion I am aware of a very similar situation in the case of a widow who has $16,000 in term deposits that are rightfully hers, but they are taking so long in getting the estate probated, that she has had to go to the bank and get a $4,000 loan to live on while the estate is being settled. Her lawyer informs me that there is nothing wrong, it just seems

[ Page 961 ]

to be held up in the Probate Department.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. YOUNG: This case I believe, if she requires $4,000, it has to be five or six months.

As I read the estimates I do not know just where this comes in the estimates. I just would like to know if some attempt is being made to speed up the probate of wills and estates, especially those that are unencumbered in any way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: I don't normally have much to say in the estimates of the Attorney General's department. But I will have a little bit today on a couple of subjects.

I do think, Mr. Chairman, that the subject of consumer affairs is clearly becoming one of the major issues of this session. I was very pleased of course to hear the comments, when he opened the debate this morning, from the Attorney General that he is going to bring in legislation on the subject of mortgage brokers. I think this not a matter of disagreement between us; it is a matter of when or how we going to do it. The faster the better as far as I am concerned.

I've had so much mail on this subject, as I've said before. Really with the mail I've had this week alone, I could start all over again to debate the whole thing and give examples. I don't want to do that, of course.

I do want to say that I made the comment a week ago that I was beginning to get some evidence on this matter of what I consider to be very unethical referrals in this field. Since I spoke on that a week ago I've had several other comments from people who tell me this is just common practice. A financial collection agency of some kind, knowing that a person is in difficulties, will pass the word to one of the more unsavoury kinds of mortgage brokers or finance companies and immediately they get in touch. There is something in the way of cash or some other consideration passed under the table.

I'm not sure how we can legislate against this sort of thing, Mr. Chairman. But I have to agree with the Attorney General, the more this sort of thing is publicized, the more the sun shines in, the better chance the public has to understand it and perhaps deal with it themselves.

I want to repeat one kind of case only, because I think it one that is not understood by the public at all. I think it is not understood on the basis of questions that have been given to me, personally — it is not understood by a number of people in this House.

That is the problem that I raised two weeks ago, first of all using Avco Finance as a particular example. Again I want to say that it isn't fair to Avco to single them out I suppose — a number of people like Avco use the same kind of technique.

This is where a gentleman wanted $1,000. He went into an Avco office and made arrangements for his loan. They suggested to him that perhaps he might like to have a little trip to Seattle or something like that, so they increased the loan by $300-odd. Then the insidious things they sold him; life insurance, health and accident insurance, and fire insurance. All of which he accepted without really thinking. Immediately the loan became more than $1500.

This is the fact I was surprised to find so few people in this House understand — and hardly any of the general public understands — that when it goes over $1500 there are no ceilings whatsoever on the interest. At $1500, the ceiling is 15.2 per cent. If it is $1501, there is no ceiling and usually it jumps to 24 per cent. Fifty per cent more — more than that — three-quarters more than the ceiling. It is a tremendous jump.

The Attorney General referred to this very briefly, to point out that this is a federal problem. This comes under the federal Small Loans Act which was last amended in this area something like 17 years ago, 1956.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Chairman.

The British North America Act clearly gives the subjects of banking and interest to the federal government. While the province has such things as credit unions and disclosure of the rates of interest and that sort of thing.

What I want to emphasize here, exactly as the Attorney General has suggested, is that the federal government badly needs pushing and that the Attorney General must call for a federal-provincial conference at the first opportunity to press very hard for this. This party for one will certainly support action in this direction. I think it is long overdue.

The problems that we discussed in this area are not only legal. I appreciate that the Attorney General is going to bring in some amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act. There are not only legal problems and some of these must be dealt with in other ways.

There is the problem that we have the poor credit risk. There is the problem of homes that are outside the major urban areas. As soon as you go outside a city like Kamloops, you run into a different kind of problem entirely. The large conventional mortgage companies, the banks, the trust companies, and those sort of organizations literally refuse to write those mortgages. I am not sure what the problem is with Central Mortgage and Housing. Maybe there are some problems with CMHC in those areas. I am not sure about that. There are problems of small homes that people need to finance, that are under a certain size.

[ Page 962 ]

The conventional mortgage company says, "We're not interested. We don't want to be bothered with those." There are certain kinds of unusual homes — unusual construction and so on.

So I want to repeat the importance of perhaps the credit pool that the Attorney General mentioned. Perhaps the assigned risk plan that Frank Mazco of the Legal Aid Society in Vancouver has been proposing. The law and legal changes alone will not solve that area of problems.

I want to repeat the proposal that I made before to the Attorney General. We need some kind of finance and mortgage advisory council. I think we need to bring the industry in. If this has to be done in some legal way, let's do it. But, I think that unless we involve the industry in those areas, just passing laws alone is not going to police them satisfactorily.

If the Attorney General and the Government, with the prestige of that office, will call in the industry; set up a proper and fully representative and responsible board; point out these problems and say, "How are you going to help us solve them. If you don't want to help us solve them perhaps we may find some way to force you." But isn't it better to involve the industry on a voluntary and cooperative kind of basis. I think the industry is ready for this.

In letter after letter different companies and individuals have clearly said, "We would like to work with the Attorney General and with the government in solving these problems. There is a reputable side of this industry, "

Perhaps if they were called in they would have the opportunity to set the standards of fees, the ethics — and help the Attorney General do the policing which he points out is very difficult to do by legal means and the law alone.

I've mentioned before not only the Legal Aid Society, I've mentioned the Legal Assistance Society and the help that they try to give in some of these areas. I've mentioned the Consumer Action League.

I just want to speak a little about the Consumer Action League, Mr. Chairman. Their address is 257 East 11th Avenue, in Vancouver. The same address actually as the Legal Assistance Society. I want to tell you a little bit about the history of the Consumer Action League, because I think there is a very important lesson for this House to learn. This organization is worth some study and worth some publicity. In 1971 the Consumer Action League really grew out of a research project sponsored by the Company of Young Canadians. Now there has been a lot of dishwater and mud thrown at some of the federal government projects like LIP and OFY and the Company of Young Canadians and so on. I think this is an example of something excellent that grew out of the Company of Young Canadians. This research project got a couple of young people interested and involved in this area and out of this, in the spring of '72 came the Consumer Action League. A grant from the B.C. Central Credit Union of $1,000 got them going in a little office and from there they got an LIP grant which began to pay a few salaries. They've been operating all this year, since last summer, with three people under salary from the Local Initiatives Project. These people have been acting as debt counselors to people in Vancouver. They're very, little known by the general public. It's been a matter of the word spreading with regard to the kind of services they have to offer.

Last fall they've published an excellent book which I commend to everybody in this House to read. It's called a Debtors Handbook — A Canadian legal guide to handling creditors and avoiding debts. Someone commented that at the price of $2.95 maybe they were getting themselves out of debt.

But it's an excellent little publication. It's written by Mike Culpepper and Allen Parker, the two people who were the guiding lights, the moving spirits who gave inspiration to this organization to get it off the ground. It's only been on the newsstands since last November I think. I recommend it to everybody in this House. Perhaps the Attorney General might be willing to make it available to each of the Members of this House. I think it would be a good investment.

Mr. Chairman, I think B.C. owes a debt to these young volunteers. They are fine young Canadians who have shown the way to the Attorney General, to the Government and to the rest of us how to do something. I'd like to read some quotations from their most recent newsletter. It's just one paragraph, headed by, "Provincial government shows no signs of action," Mr. Chairman.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: This is just the latest one. Let me read it, Mr. Chairman:

"February, 1973. There are no signs that the provincial government is going to do anything in the consumer sphere this session. After working diligently to try to persuade the government to create a consumer affairs department, the Consumer Action League received a letter from the Attorney General virtually writing the idea off. In part, the argument was that such an entity was no cure-all.

Well, Mr. Macdonald, it may not be. What we said was, 'It would be a start.' It would give us a place to go with our problems."

And that's my underlining — it would give us a place to go with our problems, Mr. Chairman.

"Now, we aren't saying that you can't take care of things…" and they list some of the legislation they've been asking for. Some of it the Attorney General has got on the way. I won't read all that list because I give the Attorney General credit for this.

[ Page 963 ]

Certainly, this is probably about three weeks old.

I think the key sentence that I wanted to read was what I read so far — when are you going to do something about specific consumer problems? "It would give us a place to go with our problems." That's the important thing.

I had to find someplace, Mr. Chairman, to go with the file that I developed on second mortgage, third mortgage, first mortgage problems. I had to find someplace to go with the problems of finance companies. I had to find someplace to get these people advice. I've said that when I can accumulate the whole thing in an orderly form, I'm going to take it to the Consumer Affairs Office.

I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, how that present Consumer Affairs Office is going to handle this kind of file. I see no provision for it in the estimates of the Attorney General. Just this morning, I think, he's committed the officer to go to investigate a project that the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) raised.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that was another office.

MR. BROUSSON: Well, he mentioned the Consumer Affairs Office, Mr. Chairman, and this is the office I'm talking about.

This Consumer Action League is showing the way in two areas. One, which I mentioned last week, is education. The kind of thing they've printed here is education for the public to help them in these areas. They're showing the way because they have provided just one of the offices I have suggested — the storefront consumer advisory office that I called for across the province. They've provided one, at 257 East 11th Avenue in Vancouver.

I think the Government should look at this pilot that they've offered us and consider how little the provincial government has done in comparison to that pilot. That pilot now has three debt counselors operating in one part of Vancouver. The Consumer Affairs Office has its officer, who is also for — I don't know — 20 or 25 per cent of the time, chairman of the Hearing Aid Board. He has an administrative assistant and he has a secretary. The Consumer Action League has more than that; yet they're one office in Vancouver.

Other provinces, Mr. Chairman, seem to be further along in the area of protection of the public in provincial areas. I'll read a clipping from the Vancouver Sun of February 16, when the Quebec Minister of Consumer Affairs — he's a Minister of Consumer Affairs in the provincial government of Quebec, Mr. Chairman. There's a province that's obviously concerned about their responsibilities to the consumers of the province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's correct. But they also have an attorney general or a similar office, Mr. Chairman, that looks after the legal affairs of the province. They also have another Minister who looks after the industrial development of the province. This Minister that we're talking about, Mr. Chairman, seems to combine all those into one big hat, Of course, this particular story was outlining some of the regulations that Quebec has on the subject of advertising aimed at children. He went on to explain the standards of TV advertising that they were promoting in Quebec. He was asked how B.C.'s Attorney General reacted to his presentation. The gentleman said he liked it. He said, "It seemed intelligent to me."

Well, I'm very glad, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General has recognized the intelligence of these ideas. I'm glad that the Attorney General has said that he's going to attend the meeting in Quebec City in May or June on consumer affairs. But I think we're asking the Attorney General to take on too large responsibilities.

He's told us what difficulties they're having in getting all of this legislation written and into the House, the many problems he has in these areas and all the things he has to catch up on. I think if we had a complete and separate consumer affairs department, we would have an opportunity to solve these problems. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General will outline the plan that the Government has to provide the kind of service to every part of British Columbia on consumer affairs — not just to the people who write in to this tiny office in the Law Courts building in Victoria or those who visit other volunteer agencies and agencies financed in other ways.

I might comment, incidentally, that last night's Vancouver Sun still has 75 inches of classified ads under "Money for mortgages." The only encouraging thing is that Provident Mortgage, which one of those that I consider to be the worst examples of the industry, have cut their advertising down to only eight inches from about 25. They've heard some of the message, I hope it's beginning to come through to some of them.

Now I'd like to turn very briefly, Mr. Chairman, to another problem under the administrative responsibilities of the Attorney General. In this case, it's another area that I would like to remove from his jurisdiction. I want to explain to the Members of the House who are new this year that I've been carrying on a campaign since my first year in the Legislature

[ Page 964 ]

to remove the problems of the Fire Marshal's office from the Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear. Hear.

MR. BROUSSON: The problem specifically, Mr. Chairman…

AN HON. MEMBER: Put them in the Skagit Valley. (Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: Along with the mortgage brokers. (Laughter).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just don't remove the solutions.

MR. BROUSSON: The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the control of natural gas, electricity, refrigeration, boilers, pressure vessels — all of these areas come under the jurisdiction of the safety services division of the Department of Public Works. The problems of jurisdiction over propane, oil, oil-fired equipment and allied problems in building come under the Fire Marshal's office, which is in the Attorney General's jurisdiction.

I've outlined the problems at great length in the past and I'm not going to do this today. But I want to point out that the basic problem is not simply one of administration, it's the dangers to health and life that exist. The inspection of those things under the Attorney General's jurisdiction are in many cases done by RCMP or maybe the mayor of a local municipality — a variety of people like this around the province have been inspecting. :

I've told a story before where the RCMP officer in the Fraser Valley was specifically asked by an oil burner mechanic for a permit to install an oil burner. He said to the mechanic, "Have you done a good installation?" The man said, "Yes." The RCMP officer said, "Fine. Here's your permit." That's the complete extent of the inspection that was done of that particular installation.

I've been calling for four years, Mr. Chairman, to reform this jurisdiction. I've talked about it personally with the former Attorney General. I've talked about it with the former Minister of Public Works. I've talked about it with the present Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). I haven't discussed this directly and personally with the Attorney General so far this year. I sense some willingness perhaps to move in this direction. I What I regret is that when I look at the estimates of the Fire Marshal's office, I find, Mr. Chairman, that they've gone up by three people and up by about $45,000. So it doesn't appear to me that the kind of problems that I'm talking about are really being removed from the Fire Marshal's office and sent over to the Department of Public Works in any meaningful way. The Fire Marshal's office appears to be still its little empire, which is what's been going on for a good many years.

Almost every other province in Canada has this separation of jurisdictions, where the natural gas and propane and oil are all handled together within some kind of safety services division or department of labour or in a variety of ways. But they're handled together by the same group of inspectors, as I have been appealing for for four years. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General will tell us that this is a mistake in the way his estimates are drawn up for the Fire Marshal's office and that they are going to do something about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would simply like to make a few remarks about one of our problems which are intimately related in society these days to the Attorney General. Let me preface these remarks by saying that I already appreciate very much the insight the Attorney General has shown in this subject. I am talking about heroin addiction, A large percentage of people in jail, perhaps 50 per cent, are there because of some connection with drug abuse, I would like, in order to be fairly brief, to limit my remarks and make them very clearly limited to heroin. First there are two points, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make. First of all, most people who are not touched with this problem would rather not talk about it or think about it.

It is the kind of problem in our society that we all pray to God that our children or our associates will never be touched by. The fact, Mr. Chairman, and the reason I think this is so important, is that even if society is not really sympathetic to the addict per se, the number of innocent people who are intimately involved and whose lives in fact are frequently ruined by the involvement of a son or a daughter in heroin is really quite large. I would say there must be a circle of 5 or 10 people involved innocently for every one heroin addict. If we have several thousand addicts then it is obvious that we have thousands of people, in society whose lives are seriously touched by this problem. That, I think, is point number one, which is not adequately realized by the public at large.

The other point, Mr. Chairman, is that even although some of the suggestions that I'll be making to the Attorney General and asking for his response,

[ Page 965 ]

even although they may sound somewhat negative…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted also because, again in paying compliment to the Attorney General, I would say that I appeared before the task force with several people who have intimate knowledge of the heroin problem, and I was delighted by the patience and the very pertinent questioning of the two members of the task force of the heroin addicts who were present. I wish my comments to be interpreted purely constructively today and to say that I think we are on the right track.

I'm trying to make the point, for the two reasons I mentioned, that there are a number of people involved. Also, whether we like it or not, Mr. Chairman, the present situation in society is absolutely futile in relation to the heroin problem. I say not only futile in that we are not really helping people with the problem but in fact the problem is increasing in numbers. This has been disputed in some quarters but I think the best source of evidence is the people themselves who are addicted.

If you speak to the people in the greater Victoria area who are using heroin regularly, you will find that use is on the increase. I think figures from the other metropolitan centres bear this out.

So have two basic points from which to begin. I think it is a big problem in society and, secondly, whatever the law is of is not doing at the present time is futile. Why do I say futile? The simplest example one can give is our own court here in Victoria. Every day in the week the judge is landed with the responsibility of sending people to jail for a variety of crimes as well as the possession of heroin. The most frequent comment the judge makes is that he knows this is solving no problem to send them to Oakalla but he has no alternative.

If we add these three main elements together and if we listen to the medical advice that is available on a world-wide basis, it is very obvious that a person who is addicted to heroin is in fact a medical problem and not a criminal problem. That would be my first question. I would be grateful if the Attorney Genera would answer it: Does he personally agree with the points I have raised, which are just a recital of evidence which has become obvious all across the continent? Does he agree that once a person is addicted to heroin…I repeat, I am talking only about heroin. It has the unique property of totally enslaving the individual, physically, mentally and morally. A man who will steal money from his own children surely can't be considered to have remained a reasonable, rational, healthy, responsible person.

This argument is so basic to anything that the law might consider in changing its attitude.

I might interject, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this involves federal legislation, but the initiatives to solve our national problem will have to start somewhere, even in this province, or some other enlightened province. I would like to think that the enlightened province would be British Columbia.

I would like to know if this rather basic concept, that the heroin addict is a medical problem, and I repeat the word "addict" — I'm not talking about the person who dabbles in it and who still seems to have the ability to choose whether he ceases to dabble in it or to proceed to become addicted — I'm talking about the established addicts of whom there seem to be about 1,000 in the greater Victoria area.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I was coming to that point, Mr. Chairman. That is one of the myths — that most of the people who are pushing heroin are themselves addicts. This is sometimes the case but there are many people who are certainly making large sums of money who are not addicts but who are certainly trafficking in the drug.

Let me make it very clear that I feel personally, and I think experience in other countries has shown, that as far as the law is concerned on the trafficker who is not an addict, it is doubtful if it can be too severe in its penalties. But I personally am opposed to the death penalty for any reason. I want to make that point plain.

In terms of severe penalties for the trafficker, I am in agreement on that, and would echo the sentiments, I think, Mr. Chairman, of many people in our society that the law is not severe enough in the sense that in sentences, even apparently long sentences of 7, 8, or 10 years, the criminal is too readily paroled after a short period of confinement.

If the Attorney General accepts, and I would be delighted to hear it, that the addict is to be regarded as a medical problem, could I then ask the next question, as to which direction we feel we should go — first of all in containing the problem and in controlling crime associated with the problem. These two aspects are intimately related one to the other for obvious reasons. If the addict is irresponsible and cannot be cured, and I keep repeating this, we are trying to contain the problem. This is why it seems such a negative attitude.

There is an excellent long documentation of the whole problem, for the record, in a magazine called The Public Interest in the fall of 1972. This is a tremendously accurate appraisal of all the aspects of heroin addiction. It makes this point very clear, that whatever we do, we are simply trying to contain a problem.

[ Page 966 ]

If we only succeed in making it no worse, then perhaps this goal is as much as we could achieve. This is why I personally, from some considerable contact with addicts, parents of addicts, the brothers and sisters of addicts, really have come to the firm conclusion that despite the apparently negative approach, I would hope that this Government, through the Attorney General, would look very seriously at making a approach to Ottawa to consider the containment value of providing heroin under medical supervision to, and I repeat, to the established addict.

There is no suggestion that one should in any way legalize heroin. I am simply suggesting that there is enough evidence to support the concept this would at least contain the addiction. It would somewhat reduce the crime associated with it. I'm not suggesting it would eliminate it — that is not the case. But it would reduce the crime.

In conjunction with this provision we might also develop alternative, compulsory forms of restraint on the individual. I think that our basic concept of human behaviour is that within large measure we should be allowed to behave as we choose, provided this does not impair or damage other members of society around us.

Therefore, if we decide that the man or woman is not a criminal but is, in fact, a considerable menace to his associates, I personally would wonder if the Attorney General would look at the alternative of some other form of restraint — compulsion that the person be treated and attempts made to rehabilitate him while, perhaps, in the meantime, having no choice but to provide some amount of heroin. I would like to think that we've reached the point in our society where we recognize this kind of approach as offering something more positive than what we're doing at the present time.

On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of this, many heroin addicts are criminals before they get on to heroin. I would not want to leave the impression with the House that I'm suggesting that this kind of alternative — compulsory restraint on the addict together with medical rehabilitation — would necessarily solve the problem.

We have to accept the undesirable conclusion that what we're trying in large measure to do is contain the problem, since it seems rather obvious from experience all over the world that addicts to heroin cannot be cured. I think that if we go off with any kind of goal, with the best of intentions, with the idea that this would cure the problem, then of course we will fail miserably and feel disappointed. But the situation is sufficiently serious, and I know there are many addicts — I've met many of them — who have made repeated attempts to terminate their addiction.

I may say in passing that in our many discussions I appreciate the efforts of the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi), who has gone a long way to listening and becoming aware of the total drug problem in society, including the heroin aspect.

There are many addicts who do attempt to come off the drug. I think that so much of the problem is a medical one their physiology is changed to a degree — that it may well be impossible for an addict to remain permanently off. This is an opinion which one can't prove. But there's so much evidence to indicate the irrational behavior of the person who, let us say, has been off heroin for weeks, or months, or even years, and the impulsive, sudden way in which they may suddenly again begin to take heroin and become re-addicted, if that is the word.

What I'm saying in this attitude of containment, which I hope the Attorney General would consider, is the fact that if they are a medical problem maybe we shouldn't look at them so differently from the person with diabetes, or heart disease, or blood pressure, who is well for several months and then becomes ill, then overcomes his illness and for a period of time is again "abstinent," for lack of a better word.

I think society's problem is that the heroin addict in the first place inflicted the problem on himself. But if the man with a heart attack has periods of illness, and periods of functioning when he holds his job and supports his family, then of course he gets a lot of society's sympathy for the periods of illness. Certainly the heroin addict, I think, is ill in a sense for the rest of his or her life.

If we could begin to adopt this kind of approach, provided we protect the rest of society as far as possible through the means you and I agreed about, namely heavy penalties on traffickers and some compulsory restraints on the person who perhaps exhibits no wish to give up the addiction and is obviously a constant menace to society by his crimes, I think we have to seriously look at some intermediate type of facility for the compulsory restraint of such a person.

He does himself no good to be in jail, and it's common knowledge that he affects others in jail who perhaps come out of jail with ideas and knowledge about drugs which they didn't even have when they went in.

I've spoken too long, I realize, and I'm finished. But I think the whole perspective of heroin in society we should not try to divorce as harshly as we do from the purely criminal aspect. If the efforts in the social sphere and the medical sphere of the other two Ministers are combined with the Attorney General's efforts, I feel that this province could set — we were talking about pathfinders the other day, I think we could be pathfinders in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister

[ Page 967 ]

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the House should recognize that the previous speaker has done a great deal to bring some real focus onto this problem, not only as a Member of this Legislature but as a member of the medical profession. And it's rare indeed that you have such a courageous effort on a part of a member of the medical profession to deal with this particular problem.

I've had the privilege of participating on two panels with the Member. I find that his attitude to the problem is knowledgeable and forthright. It takes a lot of courage to be able to do that.

Now, as I've said publicly before, the Government has been considering this problem. I submitted a report to five members of the cabinet who are involved in this particular problem. Sometime today, at the appropriate time, I'm going to file a copy of the report and make it available to everybody.

What I want to say is this. We are very much aware of the tremendous frustration that exists in communities in the province about the drug problem. There is nobody in this House who is not touched by this problem, because somewhere in a family, or in a relative or a friend, they know of situations in relation to the drug problem.

Let me say this. In our report we've used the term "drug abuse," more or less interchangeably with "drug dependency." And when we talk about drugs we also talk about the alcohol problem — in fact, all of the drug taking that creates dependency which some people need in order to be able to function. In most cases many of them are not functioning that well.

I'm not going to discuss anything to do with the correctional side of the drug question, because as you know there is a task force that is preparing a report for the Attorney General. I don't think that I should mention that.

Specifically, the whole question of, what we are going to do about the drug dependency problem — when I submitted the report, I made a number of recommendations. I said that in view of the very serious problem of drug dependency in the province it is recommended that the cabinet adopt the following policies:

(1) Approve the statement of philosophy. In the report we have noted a philosophical approach to this which is very much in keeping with what the previous speaker talked about. We deal with it as a medical social problem.

(2) Enact legislation to create a commission in this session. Legislation is being prepared to create a drug dependency, or drug abuse commission, somewhat on the lines of the one that exists in Alberta, with some changes. We have endeavoured to define what drug abuse is, what drug dependency is, and what the function of the commission would be.

There would be a cabinet committee, that would be responsible for the total problem. They would appoint one Minister to report to the legislature.

We would appropriate money, perhaps equal to the amount of money that is already being spent. We're having great difficulty trying to assess just how much money this Government is spending in all of the areas. We have 84 agencies in this province that are involved in the drug dependency programmes. As soon as we have a firm figure we will certainly announce it to the House. It is necessary that we co-ordinate all of this effort and that the effort be co-ordinated through the commission.

But the main thrust of the work of the commission will be right into the communities. We will ask every community What it is they want to do about the drug problem. Through the vehicle of community resource centres, we would want it to happen that that service would be delivered.

We are not visualizing a monolithic structure at the top telling people in the communities what to do. We are asking the people in the communities to tell us what it is they think we should do.

We were up in Duncan two weeks ago and met with a group of people. Over 300 people turned out on a Saturday to discuss this problem. They have a structure. There is an excellent structure in Lake Cowichan that has a resource centre operation. And we have to plug all of the needs for countering the drug problem into these structures, because the resource centre is not going to be just for drug addicts, but for all of the problems that the community has to deal with.

You will also find in the report that we've recommended that we phase out the operation of drug-specific agencies. There are a number of drug specific agencies that are operating in the province. We have suggested that over a period of two years these should be phased out. They should plug their services into the community resource centres. If those services are not acceptable to the centres, then we have to suggest that that's not the way to go.

We cannot continue to support drug-specific agencies. We want to deal with problems, not with a specific kind of approach. As I've said before, we've got 84 agencies that are dealing in this kind of problem in the most un-coordinated way.

In reference to the whole question of education, there's been lots said about the values of education in the whole drug question. The report is only six pages long but attached to the report is a lot of back-up material which I hope the Members will find interesting. There's two specific articles that have been done by specialists in the field on the whole question of drug education.

[ Page 968 ]

I don't think we should kid anybody that just because we spent over $400,000 on advertising, as we did last year in the drug business, that it's having any significant impact at all. What we are suggesting is that we want to get together a group of people — some educators, students, public relations people, parents especially parents of those who are addicted — and we want to talk about how we're going to develop the kind of education programme that will be needed.

In my opinion we're going to have to deal with drug education in terms of those young children in our schools nine and ten years of age. We're going to have to interpret to them the business of getting a "high" out of life rather than a "high" out of some kind of drug. That's going to be difficult but we've got to go that route.

Last year there was an international conference. Peter Hammond, who is very well known in the field of drug education — and you will have a copy attached to the report — talks about the way people see drug education as a panacea. I think the public should know that we know nothing about how to educate people about drugs. We're going to start to try and understand which are the best ways to approach this thing.

Let me just say a word about the commission in case people get worried that what we're doing is setting up a structure which will perhaps dominate the citizens in terms of what we want to do.

We have never had a real opportunity in this province…I beg your pardon?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the minister of defence.

HON. MR. LEVI: Listen, you're going to learn something. We're going to open up a whole new horizon in this business; something you people never did over there. You dodged the issue constantly.

It's an issue we've got to face very squarely. Politically, they tell me, it's a liability. But that's one of the problems of being in politics; you have to take the liabilities with the assets.

The thing is about the commission, we want to be able to obtain a chairman who knows the field, who has public respect and some ability to find the kind of people that we want to use as a support staff. The main focus is going to be in the communities. There is the problem of how one gives out the funds. We have some opinions about the way this must be done.

We want to be able to ask the federal government very squarely what it is they intend to do about the drug situation. At the moment, their only plan in this province is to provide a number of agencies with up to $700,000 in funds. Most of that is in the research area.

I think that in the beginning this drug dependency commission has to have a focus which is service oriented. We've got to get into the communities and help these people develop the services to deal with the drug addiction programme.

Nobody is questioning the need for research and, more specifically, for evaluation. This is one of the constant problems that we have very much in the social service field; we very rarely evaluate the kind of programmes that we pay for year after year. Very specifically, in this drug commission, there will be an evaluation component, because what we have to do is to know that the programmes that we're delivering are the kinds of things the people want.

There have been many discussions in the province about what the whole drug problem costs in terms of the misery and the agony and the financial costs. You'll see in the report there's a quotation from the B.C. Research Council report about their estimated costs based on 10,000 addicts. They use a figure of $145 million as the amount of money they required to purchase the drug. You can imagine the enormous about of crime that has to take place in order to do that kind of purchasing.

I asked the day what it costs to provide for a "fix" of heroin in a legal way; it varies between about 28 and 35 cents.

I've talked previously outside of the House about the whole question of examining the total drug problem in respect to what might have to happen in three or four years from now. Just so that no one misinterprets what I said, we will have and we are having now a discussion publicly by a number of very informed people about this problem.

All things have to be considered; all kinds of programmes have to be considered. Obviously there is the question we eventually might have to decide, after a great deal of debate, of whether, in fact, we go the way of giving the drug. But that will have to be debated and talked about in public.

I can tell you this; we will not be the first people to raise this question. It's been raised in many states in the United States and of course, as you know, it is a continuing source of debate in England where they are doing just that kind of thing. They're not convinced that that is the absolute way to go and they're looking at other ways.

We have to get away from the position in this province that somehow there's a panacea in the use of methadone treatments. We've got to be somewhat adventurous in the kind of things that we do.

Mr. Chairman, what we're really hoping to do is to set some standards for the rest of the country. We're not going to be able to do this alone; this problem exists in very province across this country. We have talked informally to the federal government about this. Now that we've announced an approach to a

[ Page 969 ]

policy we are hoping, at the next meeting of the federal ministers, this will be placed on the agenda. I doubt that we'll be able to get into it in April but certainly we're going to ask them to consider calling a special ministers' conference to discuss this whole problem of drug dependency across the country.

We're not going to be able to do it by ourselves, but we have sparked the debate. I hope that when the Members participate in this debate, they'll agree to come along with this to make it known across Canada that we're quite prepared to be the trailblazers but we are not going to be able to do it alone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we move to motions and adjourned debate on motions.

Motion approved.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources and Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move motion No. 33 standing in my name on the order paper, seconded by the Hon. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). (see appendix).

I think the motion is self-explanatory. It's the hope of the Government that the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Fisheries could examine this important question of stream bank and shoreline protection and that the committee might, in fact, tour the province and see previous activities and review existing standards.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): It's basically a question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister might comment very briefly on why it is necessary in this instance to have a committee tour and look at this? My understanding of this problem is that it is basically a technical program and that he does have a fair amount of information within his own department as well as the ability to pull in outside specialists.

Really, it's not the type of political question that Members of this House might be able to help on so much as a question which should be decided right within his own department or, indeed, his own department in consultation with other civil servants or technical experts of federal fisheries.

Could he comment just on why he's chosen this method which would tend to delay…

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. One minute, please. You realize that if the Minister answers at this moment he closes the debate. Is there any further debate from Members?

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): By what has been said — the information that's spread abroad by the wildlife and the conservationist group — as the Member said, seemed to make it relatively straightforward as to what happens to the streams and the fact that it is very much a matter of logging practices. In fact, the Members of the Government when they were on this side of the House mentioned many of the details and stated that it was simply debris in the river and removal of gravel beds and many basic features which, as far as I can read at any rate, in the minds of the conservationists it's not a difficult problem to correct, provided the proper legislation were forthcoming to protect the river beds, the rivers and the fish.

Therefore I simply wonder whether this is, in fact, a necessary — I must apologize in a way. We're always asking the Government to send things to committee, and here I am suggesting that in this particular instance there is no need for a committee study. But I'd like a comment from the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further discussion before the Minister? I call on the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree that there are areas of considerable technical ability. We might very well proceed simply on the basis of some interdisciplinary input. But there are some genuine differences as well, even in the technical areas. I really think the politicians have a role to play in moving around the province and seeing the approach and what has happened, in fact, in several regions, hopefully.

There have been different approaches in different regions in the province. So the technicians are actually arguing among themselves to some extent. On top of that, industry has indicated that even the existing guidelines create problems for them. I think that in the end, these kinds of differences have to be

[ Page 970 ]

resolved in a political way. In that sense, I think the politician has an input.

I think it would be useful in terms of the experience of everyone concerned — the Members of the committee, the people in industry and the conservationists. While not all of the exercise may be necessary, I think a very good part of it is. That's why we're proceeding on this basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I beg leave to have the rules suspended so that I may introduce a motion on standing orders.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say, Hon. Members, I requested the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) to put this motion to you to clear up the question that's in my note to you on question period. I think it's necessary that we have a formalization of what we're doing. Would you put the motion to the House so they can decide whether they want to…

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, I've sent copies to the various groups in the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, they know. Thank you.

HON. MR. HALL: Have I leave?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: I move that the orders of the day be amended by the following sessional order: that after the word "Prayers" the following words by inserted: "Oral questions by Members" and that oral questions by Members be given precedence on the order paper over all of the business next after introduction of bills.

The point is, as you say, Mr. Speaker, that we want the oral question period to appear on orders of the day. It's a sessional order. We've a number of other amendments that will take place, I'm sure, before the end of the session on standing orders. This will put us in order on our orders of the day. I move the motion.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, this will have to be a second motion and I ask leave to suspend the rules so that standing order 129 may be amended.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I move that standing order 129 be amended by deleting 129 (7) substituting therefore the following: "(7) that after the prorogation of the House, a transcript of the said debates in the House and Committee of the Whole House shall be prepared under the supervision of Mr. Speaker and a copy thereof, certified by him, shall be distributed (a) without charge to any Member upon the Member's request and (b) to any other person with charge to be fixed by order-in-council;" and that standing order 129 be further amended by deleting 129(8).

The effect of this motion, Mr. Speaker, is simply to make sure that the results of our deliberations are available to Members and available to the public and also to take care of the fact that we now have two kinds of Hansard going, one in the loose-leaf form and one in the bound form, and we're trying to clean up our bureaucratic procedures. I move the motion, Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Levi files policy document.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on page 969 of the daily Hansard:

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries to examine the existing Forest Service guidelines with respect to stream bank and shoreline protection and examine existing and past practices in the field with a view toward improving said practices:

The Committee shall have the power to send for persons, papers, records, and to hear representations from such organizations, agencies, companies, and individuals as may, in their discretion, appear necessary, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the House.