1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1974
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 1029 ]
CONTENTS
Routine proceedings
Oral questions
Memorandum tabled on inventories question. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1031
Accounting procedures on Songhees Indian lands. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1031
Hydro inventory procedures. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1031
BCFGA negotiations. Mr. Bennett — 1031
Auto body shops surcharge. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1032
Meeting on land claims with Union of B.C. Chiefs. Mr. Wallace — 1032
Crown position on cement overcharges. Mr. Cummings — 1032
Action to reduce price of beef to consumers. Mr. Chabot — 1033
Bids and particulars about new B.C. ferries. Mr. Curtis — 1033
Federal-provincial relations on Skagit Valley submission. Mr. Gibson — 1033
Filing of mining company prospectus with Securities Commission.
Mr. Smith — 1034
Emergency debate on rent freezes. Mr. Curtis — 1034
Administrative structure for BCIT — 1034
Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.
Mr. Fraser — 1053
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1055
Mr. Fraser — 1055
Mr. Smith — 1055
Hon. Mr. Hall — 1057
Mr. Smith — 1057
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1058
Mr. Bennett — 1058
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1059
Ms. Sanford — 1059
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1060
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1060
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1064
Mr. Gabelmann — 1064
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House a former Speaker of this Legislature now living in Arizona. He was then the Hon. Hugh Shantz. I'd like you to give him a good welcome. I'm very thankful for some of his decisions, from time to time.
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a number of bright, energetic, potentially great citizens in the Province of British Columbia from Centennial High School in that modest constituency of Coquitlam.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'd like also to welcome visitors from Fort St. John. In the Members' gallery this afternoon we have Mayor Peter Frankin, Alderman Davidson and Town Clerk Doug Harman.
HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you and the assembly join me in welcoming a group of students from Hope Secondary School with their teachers, Mr. William Scott and Alphonse Boucher.
MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from Hugh Boyd High School in Richmond.
HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a group of constituents from Vancouver South and I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming them here today.
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the galleries of Mayor Ross Marks of 100 Mile House, the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, along with two members of the UBCM staff. In addition, I think it should be pointed out that Mayor Marks received a very important honour last September when he became one of the very few members of the UBCM to serve a second term as president of UBCM.
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I am rising on a question of point of privilege. On the order paper today there is motion 16, in which the Hon. Eileen E. Dailly is to move a motion to set up a committee to find out whether I did indeed abuse on February 20 — two weeks ago today....
MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of your privilege?
MR. PHILLIPS: My point of privilege is just this, Mr. Speaker. This motion is hanging like a great big hatchet over my head and I, like the Premier, will not be cajoled, bludgeoned, threatened or intimidated in my work in this Legislature representing the people of that great constituency of South Peace River!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I take the short content of your remarks to be that you'd like them to get on with this motion or drop it. Is that what you're saying?
MR. PHILLIPS: That is exactly it.
MR. SPEAKER: The question is that I'm not in charge of the order of business in the House. I merely have to follow the wishes of the House as its servant. I point out to the Hon. Member that we unanimously passed a priority motion, a precedence motion that supply take precedence over all other business until concluded.
I cannot change the order of business on my own and I'm sure that the Hon. Member can't either, but between us, perhaps he can be patient.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the fair-minded individual that you are, I would like the opportunity to plead with the lady Member who brought in this motion that she should not leave this hanging over my head as a threat. So far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, this has absolutely nothing to do with the pending court case....
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that the Hon. Member is out of order and he knows he's out of order.
MR. PHILLIPS: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I know flattery is very nice, but it doesn't solve the problem of the rules.
MR. PHILLIPS: How would you like to have that hatchet hanging over your head? If I was out of order in this House and if I misused the rules of this House I want you to call that committee and I want you to do whatever you're going to do to me — now! (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKER: I'm going to ask you to sit down now, please. (Laughter.)
[ Page 1030 ]
MR. PHILLIPS: This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: No, it certainly isn't, but I do say we must comply with the orders of the House and the rules of the House, and in due course I hope motions will be called.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order. Yesterday in the House a point was made by the Premier that the subject matter of that motion was sub judice. In other words, we posed a variety of questions in committee to the Premier in which he failed and would not answer because he suggested that the matter was before the courts, or was to be before the courts. On that basis we were unable to question the Premier on the government's actions relative to Dunhill and Columbia Cellulose.
MR. SPEAKER: I can only say that if it's sub judice I'll have to look at the question, but it's not one that we can debate at this time because it would be out of order.
MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether you could point out to me the propriety of a deputy government leader preparing a motion of censure against a Member from the blues, which you've ruled on, Mr. Speaker. The blues are not to be used for any official purpose.
MR. SPEAKER: I've already pointed out to the Hon. Members that the blues are there for their convenience only. They're not for publication to the press, but they're for your convenience in this House. If you wish to take responsibility for anything that's printed in the blues in this House, you take that on yourself.
MR. BARRETT: Point of order. I would appreciate a ruling from yourself, as I only expressed an opinion yesterday, related to information that came to my attention about a certain court case. I would appreciate a Speaker's opinion on both motion 13 and motion 16 referred to by the Member. I would ask if your would be kind enough to take it under advisement and give us your Speaker's opinion on those two motions, considering the legal action.
MR. SPEAKER: These are motions 13 and 16. Well, in due course I will study the matter with my advisers and report back to the House.
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. My conduct in this House can have nothing to do with this court case which is before it. I'll help you rule on that right now; it's got absolutely nothing to do with my conduct in the House.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, let's have a ruling.
MR. SPEAKER: I know nothing about the court case, and naturally I would have to ascertain the facts before I could even consider the question. I would hope that you would all be patient so that I would have time to do that.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear.
MR. PHILLIPS: That's the easy way out for a bad position.
MR. SMITH: In the discussion a few moments ago you said, and quite rightly, that Committee of Supply takes precedence over all other business. But I would remind you, Sir, that it takes precedence over all other business unless otherwise ordered.
MR. SPEAKER: That's true.
MR. SMITH: And this can be ordered by the leader of the government and the House Leader at any time, as you so well know.
MR. SPEAKER: That's a matter between the two of you which I can't solve. Any other questions on this?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it was fairly well established in the Sommers case, a case of a Minister of the Crown launching proceedings for libel to prevent a subject being discussed in this House — or so it was interpreted by the opposition at that time — that the fact that a civil matter is before the courts in this way does not constitute a bar to discussion, and I trust this will be borne in mind.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank you for your advice on the matter. I think I already know at this point that usually matters that are before the court, if they are in the House at the same time, may be considered up to a certain stage. I'll deal with that when I study the matter. I appreciate all your help and advice all around. I haven't yet checked with The Vancouver Sun; I'll do that later.
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, that's a nasty slur on the press.
Introduction of bills.
Oral questions.
[ Page 1031 ]
MEMORANDUM TABLED ON
INVENTORIES QUESTION
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked a number of questions and I promised the House that I would get a response to those questions as quickly as possible.
On the question of inventories, Mr. Speaker, let me first of all table with the House a memorandum to all Deputies concerning this particular matter that was raised yesterday, and which caught the interest and the fancy of the House. I think this memorandum dated November 10, 1965, clears up any questions. If there are any further questions, I'll be pleased to refer them to my department.
MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me; you wish to have that tabled?
HON. MR. BARRETT: With leave.
Leave granted.
ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES
ON SONGHEES INDIAN LANDS
HON. MR. BARRETT: The question was raised about the Songhees reserve — a fixed assets statement. This was originally 118 acres of Indian lands located on the other side of the Johnson Street Bridge, which was purchased by the provincial government in 1917. A new reserve was purchased for them at that time.
Mr. Morrison, the Member for Victoria, had a question on vouchers from the Comptroller-General. In respect to the portion of the year November 1, 1972, vouchers were still available by vote number. Commencing April 1, 1973, the audit department has available the details of votes by supplier as well as all payments made to any supplier by sequential audit reference number.
Because of the changeover in the accounting system instituted November 1, 1972, until March 31, 1973, the supplier number has to be determined first. Then each month's records by supplier number have to be checked for the item in question.
In the Member's case the comptroller advised that his list was so voluminous that designating vouchers he required appeared to be almost an insurmountable task. He has not yet presented a call list as requested and as he stated he would do. The Comptroller-General has phoned twice but has had no return reply, but he would be pleased to hear from the Member to continue this.
I hope, Mr. Member, that he'll be able to comply with your request.
Interjection.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I think he has the answer in that regard. Okay, that's the system.
HYDRO INVENTORY PROCEDURES
HON. MR. BARRETT: The Crown corporation inventory control, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority: yes, B.C. Hydro and Power Authority keeps an inventory record comprising a control system on the receipt and issue of stores, a physical count that continues throughout the year of each item in the inventory and spot checks under the internal audit programme.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Premier is giving a statement with leave of the House I take it?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, this is the request....
MR. SPEAKER: It still has to have leave of the House.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, with leave I'll file the answers. In all cases, B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro and Power Authority do have inventories and the details are here.
MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much.
HON. MR. BARRETT: You're very welcome, and I'm pleased to have had the opportunity of answering these questions so quickly.
MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, my question....
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What's your point of order?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. We are quite happy in the opposition to have the Premier answer questions raised in committee in this way. But I feel it's important that this not be done in question period time. Question period should be formally called after Ministerial statements of this nature have been completed.
MR. SPEAKER: All right, it's compensated for, in any event.
BCFGA NEGOTIATIONS
MR. BENNETT: To the Hon. Minister of Agriculture: on February 25 the Minister was reported as stating that in negotiations with the BCFGA negotiating group for a guaranteed farm income plan, they were together on 28 of 30 points. I
[ Page 1032 ]
wonder if the Minister could advise whether they're still together on 28 of 30, or how the negotiations have gone on this plan.
HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still going on. There's still this concern about the two major points. There was another meeting last week; there's another one planned for this week.
MR. BENNETT: But, my question was whether there are only two points separating the group.
HON. MR. STUPICH: That's the latest information I have, yes.
AUTO BODY SHOPS SURCHARGE
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. As autobody shops are now charging people who bring their cars in for repairs a surcharge of $1.50 per hour, and they are charging this prior to starting any repairs, may I ask whether it's possible for these people who are so charged this surcharge to apply to ICBC for a refund?
HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I would have to give some consideration to that suggestion before I could give you a yes or no answer to that. There are so many things involved in the proposal.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Indeed there are, Mr. Minister, but the subject has been before you now ever since this scheme began some 12 days ago. I would like to know what the procedure should be for my constituents on Vancouver Island who happen to have accidents — their fault or somebody else's — and who are being asked to put up money before the body shops will touch their cars. What advice can I give them?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I had no knowledge that any body shop in Victoria was charging a surcharge.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Vancouver Island.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: You said your constituency.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My constituents happen to drive, Mr. Minister, from outside my own constituency to other parts of the Island. It's a logical thing, if you have an automobile, to take it a distance.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you send over the case of the individual who has been charged a surcharge and I'll certainly check it.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I take the Minister's reply to mean then, Mr. Speaker, that there is no standard procedure to be followed and no policy direction has been laid down by the Minister to ICBC?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I outlined the situation to the House yesterday.
MEETING ON LAND CLAIMS
WITH UNION OF B.C. CHIEFS
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier whether he received a letter dated March 1 and a Telex dated March 8 from the Union of B.C. Chiefs seeking a meeting regarding the land claims, and is he intending to have that meeting?
HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Member.
CROWN POSITION ON
CEMENT OVERCHARGES
MR. R.T.- CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. On March 12, in The Province paper there was a headline which alarmed me very much. It said, "Crown Can't Sue to Recover Rigged Cement Costs. Taxpayers are not about to get back any of the extra money they have paid by these concrete prices...."
MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the Hon. Member...? First of all, it sounds like a hypothetical question, which would be out of order. Secondly, may I point out that the Hon. Attorney-General's estimates will be up in a few minutes, in which case questions that have to do with his department are then available for questioning?
MR. CUMMINGS: The point I want to make is that the federal government says they can't move because there's a statute law. But there's a basic common law that a Criminal is not allowed to profit by a crime. I want to know from the Attorney-General how come corporate criminals can escape with a profit. These fines they pay are just minimal of the real profit that they have absconded with.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Attorney-General wish to answer at this time?
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I'll make a brief answer. I can't give an
[ Page 1033 ]
instant legal opinion as to whether or not the consumers who have been hurt by price-fixing have a right of action against the companies who are guilty of that particular offence. I doubt if they do, and I think that the Legislature — and I'm sure the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) will be looking at this — may have to think in terms of some class remedy to make it possible for consumers who are illegally faced with an unjust price increase to recover the amount by which they have been bilked.
MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to curtail this because I think it's out of order. In Beauchesne on 147 it says,"You must not seek an answer to a legal proposition or legal question."
ACTION TO REDUCE
PRICE OF BEEF TO CONSUMERS
MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, a question to the Minister of Consumer Services. It has to do with the critical statements made by the Minister of Agriculture and Beryl Plumptre. They condemned the retail outlets for not reducing the price of beef in the stores, which the Minister outlined had been reduced substantially to the producer but hasn't been passed on to the consumer. I was wondering what action the Minister has initiated to rectify this problem.
HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, our department is still in its formative stages and we're not in a position at this time to examine the question nor to take remedial action. Hopefully before the end of the session we will be in such a position.
BIDS AND PARTICULARS
ABOUT NEW B.C. FERRIES
MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications. When is it likely that we shall have a decision by the B.C. Ferry Authority with respect to the acceptance or rejection of the bids received for the construction of three new ferries?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I am expecting a report momentarily from the Ferry Authority management on the bids which were opened, I think, yesterday.
MR. CURTIS: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. In the event that B.C. Ferries accepts one of the bids and it is higher than has been allocated, will the additional revenues be made available from another source?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I'll take that as notice.
MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Supplemental. With regard to the B.C. Ferries, would the Minister of Transport and Communications confirm at this time that the designs for the new ferries will contain provisions for only coin-operated dispensing of food?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's certainly news to me if it's true. I'll check, but I doubt it very much. It was my understanding there was going to be full cafeterias on these new ferries. You may be right, I don't know, but I doubt it very much. (Laughter.) I doubt it very, very much.
MR. McCLELLAND: But I could be right.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It would be strange, but it could happen.
Interjections.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Have you had any secret meetings? Have you got any idea where that information came from?
MR. McCLELLAND: I'll tell you about it some day.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: You said you hadn't been to any secret meetings. Have you been to secret meetings somewhere?
MR. WALLACE: Supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister tell us whether the design of the new ferries will obviate the need to pump the bilges of the ships in the straits? Will there be separators — I believe that's the technical term — compared with the practice which goes on with the existing ferries of pumping the bilges out in the straits.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't answer that question now.
MR. WALLACE: It's a pretty important pollution question.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, okay, I'll take it as notice. I'll get an answer for you.
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
ON SKAGIT VALLEY SUBMISSION
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who said last week that it would be unlikely, according to the
[ Page 1034 ]
report, that the provincial government would support a federal submission to the United States Federal Power Commission to prevent the flooding of the Skagit Valley. I'd ask him if he has now crystallized this lack of support into a firm government policy.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I think that the position has been stated in the press. I have really nothing further to comment in that regard.
MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister say whether it's a fact that provincial officials have been ordered not to work with federal officials on this case?
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.
FILING OF MINING COMPANY
PROSPECTUSES WITH SECURITIES COMMISSION
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Attorney-General. In view of the provisions of Bill 31, which grants large discretionary powers to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), how can any mining company file a meaningful prospectus with respect to mining ventures with the Securities Commission?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there is a bill currently before the House. I can't give a legal opinion on that; you'd have to ask the Hon. Minister of Mines. He'll give you a legal interpretation of that bill.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about Prospectuses from mining companies who wish to engage in a new venture in the Province of British Columbia. How can they file a prospectus when they do not know to any great degree what effect this bill will have on their operations? Yet they must file those prospectuses with the Securities Commission.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that's a proper matter to bring up during discussion of the bill.
MR. SPEAKER: We can deal with that later perhaps in the estimates if it's found to be in order.
EMERGENCY DEBATE
ON RENT FREEZES
MR. CURTIS: To the Hon. Premier. Is the Premier aware of any request from the First Member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes) for an emergency debate on rent freezes in the lower mainland area of B.C.?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, thank you for the question. I certainly am, and we are having an emergency debate in caucus. I'm pleased with that Member's contribution as a Member who fights for his constituents.
MR. CURTIS: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. That's wonderful about the caucus, Mr. Premier, but when is it likely to reach the floor of the House?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I can't share with you the results of all secret meetings. We only have reports on some — (Laughter) — some of which have been attended by some people and some which have been attended by another. But if you wish to join our caucus, you don't have to do it by secret meeting. Write out an application and we'll consider it. Then you'll have an up-to-date report.
MR. CURTIS: Supplemental. Invitation declined, Mr. Speaker, but when will it reach the floor of the House where we can all debate this very serious matter?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Soon I hope, Mr. Member.
ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE
FOR BCIT
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. Can she inform us when we're to get the autonomous administrative structure for BCIT so that the present iniquitous situation where the Provincial Secretary makes an offer of 14.5 per cent in wages one day and reduces it....
Interjection.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is that not so? You made no offer of 14.5? I thank you for your correction. When are we going to get an autonomous structure?
HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I believe I informed the House last session that I'd have the legislation for this session and that still stands.
Orders of the day.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
On vote 11: administration, Attorney-General's office, $79,652.
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General):
[ Page 1035 ]
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to filibuster my own estimates, but I want to say two or three things very shortly in opening this vote.
It has been a time of rapid change in the Attorney-General's department. One of my very good lawyers the other day was talking to some judges and he said working in the A-G's department was like being in a car that was running out of control down a hill 60 miles an hour. And he said, "I think I fell out." Neither he nor anyone else has fallen out, but it is a period when I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the staff in the department. There are extensive changes going on. There are new faces, such as the new Deputy Minister, Mr. David Vickers, and it's kind of an exciting period.
I don't know everything that's going on, so I hope that in the course of this debate what I don't know I'll find out by way of your questions.
To give a couple of examples of some of the reorganization that's going on, I might mention two things. I've long thought that the corporate and financial services of the Attorney-General's department which have been fragmented should be co-ordinated and combined. You have the Registrar of Companies, the Superintendent of Brokers, the real estate function, the insurance function, the society function, public trustees and the administration of estates. That kind of financial services is what the Attorney-General's department wants to extend to the people of the province, and perhaps, more particularly, to the business community of the province. We think they should be co-ordinated rather than running in their own separate directions. I think it's very valuable in terms of enforcement and improving the quality of those services.
I would like to announce that I'm proposing there be a new Associate Deputy Minister. How many will that make in the department?
Interjection.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, nobody's being fired, and the person I'm proposing for that job is a very capable and dedicated person, namely, Mr. Dennis Sheppard, who has served the people of British Columbia in one capacity or another and in government to a great extent for a long period of time. I think those of you who know him will commend the choice I'm proposing to make.
Talking about the organization of the department, I'd like to say a word or two about — well, let's call it by its true name — organized crime.
I've long felt that the people who are responsible for big crime get away — whether it's in British Columbia or Quebec or Ontario or states of the Union of United States below the border. They are the fish that are never caught; the big ones that get away.
They never, for example, get close to the white poison. They are very hard to prosecute. It's the lesser fry that cause the immediate damage in the community, but very often bigger people are responsible. And to a very great extent, our intelligence units know who they are, know when a contract murder has been carried out in the Province of British Columbia. But there hasn't been that coordination of forces of justice which will enable the effective things to take place. And by effective, I mean research in the area, drawing upon the whole gamut of activity, including — and I stress this as terribly important in this field — the full co-operation of the federal government and its agencies.
In this connection I have had very brief remarks with the Hon. Otto Lang, Minister of Justice, and the Solicitor-General for Canada, Warren Allmand, and I intend to have further conversations because in this kind of a project we would need, of course, their co-operation. It would be most helpful to us.
We think in terms of the necessity for policy in this field and if it isn't serious at the present time in British Columbia, it will become so unless we make it clear that this kind of organized crime will be hounded in this province, and that B.C. is not going to be this kind of a garden where this thing will be allowed to flourish and grow and be attractive to the kind of criminal elements that I am mentioning, and where it can so easily become attractive because the means of transportation are so simple and swift and short today by aircraft.
So we think there should be a policy board looking at that problem, with elements in it from the Attorney-General's Department to police....
AN HON. MEMBER: To discuss the police commission?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, not really. No, I'm not talking about the police commission, Mr. Member, I'm talking about a unit within the department which will be concerned with policy, investigation and prosecution.
And speaking in terms of personnel, though this isn't the object of getting to my feet, I have made an offer to Stewart McMorran, who's been the prosecutor in the City of Vancouver for a long period of time, who is not, as far as I know, an NDP card-carrying member.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Have you checked it out? (Laughter.)
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I haven't checked it out. But he is the kind of citizen who has proved an incorruptible prosecutor — a bit of a terrier, a bird-dog, the kind of person we need in this field if
[ Page 1036 ]
we're really to make it clear that this area's not to be a happy hunting ground for big crime. So that's the kind of thing, one of the things, we're looking at in terms of a new thrust in this department.
Finally, let me confess a little disappointment, then I'll sit down, Mr. Chairman. I don't think, as the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has announced that the law school at the University of Victoria can get off the ground in September, 1974. It's not a financial thing; it's an academic problem. We have the Dean selected, Mr. Fraser Murray, and he has accepted that position. He is now the assistant dean at Dalhousie.
After a long search and careful search, we've got what I think is a very excellent candidate to act as dean of the law school. But getting together the necessary staff so the law school starts as a highly qualified respected institution in the province is something that takes time. And my indications, both from the committee at UVic and from the new dean that I have in mind, are that it probably cannot be in September, 1974, for a good start. That's the bad news.
The good news is that at UBC law school, we will be able to increase the.... We've had conversations with Dean McLean, and the enrolment of new students at that school can be increased this coming fall by 30 to 35 students. So, over a period of three years, with that additional intake, the total complement at UBC Law School will be, say, 725 students rather than 625 students.
I stress this because, as I say, it's terribly important that we open up the doors of opportunity in our professions to people against whom those doors are slammed at the present time. It may be because of lack of a privileged background — I think that does have something to do with the availability of higher education, especially specialized higher education, to many of the people of the province.
But I think it's terribly important that we have an additional inflow of home-trained UBC, B.C.-trained young lawyers, boys and girls, because I think they're very badly needed in this province. We're going to open, and we are opening, legal aid offices, for example, throughout the reaches of this province. We're offering pretty attractive starting salaries, but there aren't too many people to take up this kind of exciting public service kind of law. So, while we cannot proceed, as far as I know, in Victoria in September 1974, I'm glad to say that I think UBC Law School will be able to increase its enrolment, and that's a little step in the right direction.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, before I start my remarks to the estimates of the Hon. Attorney-General, I'd like first of all to welcome that new Deputy Minister in the department of the Attorney-General. And also the appointment of Mr. Sheppard as an Associate Deputy Minister.
The Attorney-General and I may have a bit of discourse this afternoon and perhaps with your help, he'll be able to answer some of the questions I'm going to pose to him this afternoon.
Anyway, before I get into that part of the Minister's estimates, I would like to indulge for a few minutes in mentioning to the House that this is Fort St. John Day. I guess we have other visitors in the gallery besides those who I officially welcomed a little earlier. I see that Alderman Hamilton, Alderman Spicer and Alderman Knight are in the gallery, along with the Chairman of the regional district, Mr. Framst. So it's nice to welcome all of those people from northern British Columbia and the town of Fort St. John to Victoria, particularly on such a nice day.
I'm glad to hear the Attorney-General's remarks with respect to increasing the enrolment of law students in the faculty at UBC. Certainly those people who wish to take up the profession of law will be glad to hear that there will be accommodation shortly for more students than there has been in the past.
I'm not sure I follow the Attorney-General's remarks with respect to organized crime in the Province of British Columbia. As I listen to him, I seem to get the impression that the law enforcement officers of the province quite often know when a contract for murder has been issued by an organized crime syndicate. If that is the case, I would ask the Attorney-General to elaborate and....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: After the event.
MR. SMITH: Well, the Attorney-General didn't explain that when he was on his feet and I was just going to suggest to him that if the law enforcement officers knew of the event, why didn't they do something to prevent it?
But the other side that I would like to spend a few minutes discussing with the Attorney-General is: it's fine for him to say that organized crime in the Province of British Columbia will be hounded and certainly looked at much closer than in the past because perhaps we are entering into a phase of fast transportation and large-scale crime operations in this province. But he must be considering, then, a treatment of what could be called hard-core criminals and hard-core crime on a different basis than he has outlined with respect to many other operations within the jurisdictions of the Attorney-General, because from what I have read and the remarks that I have heard the Attorney-General make in debate, he believes in opening up the facilities for prevention of crime along with making more use of bail, less use of detention in jails, more use of public facilities where the people who are involved are not confined.
Now, that might be a reasonable plan for people
[ Page 1037 ]
who are not involved in murder or serious crime, but I would hope that there'll be a very definite demarcation line between those criminals who will be treated as criminals, because that is what they are, and those people who have been convicted of minor misdemeanors, who could be allowed out in the public without any great harm.
As I see it, the job of the Attorney-General is to protect the public. This is one of the responsibilities of his office, and certainly he would be doing no service or favour to the public if known, hard-core criminals were treated in the same manner as those who are not involved in criminal actions.
I'd like now to spend a few moments discussing with the Attorney-General, as the chief law-enforcement officer of this province, a matter which I believe is of utmost importance.
This, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, is the need for legislation to define and eliminate conflict of interest within the operations of the government of this province...
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: ...conflict which is damaging to the public interest and which, if allowed to continue, will very soon destroy our whole parliamentary process.
Now in the last 18 months we have seen a profusion of legislation pass through this House, by a very large government majority, which gives the Crown increasing power over the rights and the privileges of people. This, in itself, is alarming. But of far greater alarm is the tendency of this administration to place in the hands of appointed boards and commissions broad sweeping powers, powers which may be exercised without bothering to refer back to the Legislative Assembly, the cabinet or, in some cases, the courts.
These powers have been granted, as the Attorney-General well knows, in certain statutes that are now part of our legal process in this province. I would ask the Attorney-General this: does the Attorney-General, as the chief law officer in this province, visualize the danger inherent in this process? If not, then I must conclude you have turned a blind eye to your responsibility as Attorney-General and choose to plot the course in the administration of your department according to narrow parochial party preferences.
Mr. Attorney-General, you have a favourite saying about letting a little sunshine in. But, far from letting a little sunshine in, if you allow this to continue, you are placing the whole province under an inverted bucket; and as you know, a bucket has no doors, no windows, very little air and, for sure, no sunshine at all.
That is the position we are approaching in the Province of British Columbia when you analyse the legislation that has been passed during the sessions since the NDP came to power.
In this province a whole new dimension of conflict of interest has been created which required identification and remedial action. Your socialist government follows the dictates of the Waffle Manifesto and other espoused socialist philosophies, and I suppose that's your prerogative. But it is rapidly expanding both the regulatory functions of government in industry, commerce and the business world.
At present you do not even appear to recognize the conflict of interest within government operations, let alone provide any remedy for it. This neglect to mention conflict of interest centres around the decisions and actions of government officials and bodies in the discharge of their public responsibilities. Officials and bodies may be faithfully pursuing the public interest as separate and apart from personal interest or personal conflict, because I believe there is a great deal of difference between conflict of public interest and conflict of interest, as you have suggested, where elected Members should be required to report to someone in the Legislature as to what they own and the assets that they have.
So I feel there is a very distinct division between people and bodies operating in the conflict of the public interest and a conflict of personal interest.
The conflict I am talking about occurs, Mr. Attorney-General, when in the discharge of public responsibilities your government places itself, or its officials, in the position of being on both sides of the question at one time — on both sides of the action at one time.
I'd like to suggest to you, for instance, that this government, as we have seen in the past few months, commits itself to being both the buyer and the seller of a resource; the issuer and the applicant for a permit or a licence; the regulator of an industry as well as the operator in that particular industry; one party in a dispute and the arbitrator of that same dispute; the competitors of a private company, or a private business, and the regulator of that company and that business.
In the opinion of the official opposition in these cases, conflict of interest is definitely involved. Even though no personal pecuniary gain may accrue to the public officials who find themselves, or their agency, in these situations, their activities and transactions definitely involve a conflict of interest in the plain sense of that term. Actions and decisions affected in this conflict of interest are contrary to the public interest.
I would like now for a few minutes to illustrate the kind of conflict of interest which is becoming increasingly apparent in the operation of this government and for which there appears little remedy in law, or little recognition of the problem. I'll take a
[ Page 1038 ]
hypothetical case as an illustration.
A coal company, of which the government is 40 per cent owner, is in danger of losing money — which would not be in the public interest. I think the Attorney-General would agree. It therefore goes to the railway, which is wholly owned by the government, and requests a reduction in freight rates. At the same time another coal company, privately owned and also losing money, makes a similar request.
Now no matter what the officials of the railway decide to do, do they not have a conflict of interest which could be prejudicial to the best interests of the railway and the non-government company or corporation?
That case is really not too hypothetical, Mr. Attorney-General, because as you full well know, you are in the process of purchasing 40 per cent of a company known as Sukunka Coal. You are the owner of the B.C. Railway. There are other companies that might want to get involved in such a situation, and Kaiser Coal might be one of the competing companies — a private company competing against Sukunka Coal for a market. Let's examine it a little further.
The government coal company, anxious to increase its production and produce a favourable operating statement, endeavours to sell coal at as high a price as possible — to the B.C. Hydro Power Authority, for instance. But B.C. Hydro, if allowed to operate without political interference, would buy its fuel as economically as possible from whatever source was available on a competitive basis.
I say to you, Mr. Attorney-General, is not conflict of interest inherent in the purchase decision of this kind, particularly if B.C. Hydro has also received sales offers from non-government coal companies? There is a definite, in my opinion, conflict of interest. Let's take another hypothetical situation. Let us look at a sawmill operation owned by the government.
In order to grow and remain viable it must acquire more timber leases. Timber leases must be obtained through a tender-bid system, processed from another agency of the same government. Individually owned and operated sawmills are also interested in acquiring some of the same leases in the same area. Does this situation create a conflict of interest for officials of both the government, the sawmill and the Forestry department? I think it does, Mr. Minister, and it is something that we need remedial action on.
Suppose the government sawmill is somewhat obsolete, and its attracts the attention of the government's environmental authorities? If the authorities really applied the environmental standards which it has established for other operators, the government sawmill would be forced to cease operation. In so doing it would be unable to hold its timber-harvesting agreement with the Department of Forestry, or honour its timber-harvesting agreement with the Department of Forestry. The environmental authority is dependent on the Department of Forestry for some of the information required to evaluate the performance of the government-owned mill, as well as to evaluate the performance of any private sawmills operating in the area.
I say in this situation a conflict of interest on the part of the officials and government exists. We only have to look at the Prince Rupert area to realize that that conflict exists today. You have Can Cel, which is a government-owned corporation, in the lumber and sawmill business, operating in competition, for instance, with Skeena Forest Products Limited, Eurocan and Rayonier, all operating some phase of their total operation in that particular area.
Let's look at another area for a few minutes, Mr. Attorney-General. Let's look at the labour relations field and unresolved industrial disputes. Let us say an industrial dispute arises between the government and the workers in its coal, sawmill, railway power operations. Government is both the employer and the arbitrator of this dispute. Does this situation involve at least an appearance of conflict of interest? I think so.
Now, take a quick look at market transactions, stock market transactions. The Minister of Finance purchases shares in a utility company for one of the superannuation funds for which he is the trustee and fiscal agent. As trustee, it is his responsibility to obtain as high a return as possible for secure investments so that as high a pension as possible may be paid to the employees when they retire. I think this is the object of the operation of any pension plan.
The utility company applies to a regulatory body for a rate increase in order to provide a reasonable rate of return to shareholders. The Minister of Finance appears at the rate hearing as an intervener, arguing that the rate increase is unnecessary. However, the rate increase may be necessary in order to pay a higher return to the people who are shareholders, including the Minister of Finance who holds shares as trustee for the pension fund.
Does this situation not involve a conflict of interest? In my opinion it does.
We only have to look at the transactions in the purchase of B.C. Telephone shares in increasing numbers, and the purchase of Westcoast Transmission shares to realize sooner or later a conflict of interest will arise.
The government purchases shares in a utility company — as you have done — and elects some members to the board of directors, which you have not done as yet, but it could happen, Mr. Attorney-General. These directors, as representatives of the government's desire to keep utility rates low, should oppose a rate increase. But as representatives of the shareholders, they should favour a rate
[ Page 1039 ]
increase. Do not such directors have a conflict of interest? I say they do. What position would these directors be in if they were called to testify at a rate hearing?
Let's look at just one more area where a conflict of interest is a distinct possibility. Government, through the Securities Commission, is responsible for the regulation of security dealings within the province. The government is also a buyer and a seller of securities, and a shareholder in a number of companies requiring various approvals, et cetera, from the Securities Commission.
Moreover, the government issues certain political statements which depress the stock market of certain companies. The government, through its stock market consultants, buys up a portion of the stock at depressed prices. It could happen. Shortly thereafter the government makes a number of policy announcements which paint a bright future for companies in which it has acquired equity.
In that respect we could suggest that the $12 million profit made by Can-Cel in the first year of operation under the government had an effect of bolstering people's confidence in Can-Cel.
The question that should be asked, though — irrespective of any insider trading that could have taken place in that particular transaction — the question that should be asked is: is that $12 million of profit a legitimate profit? Or was it really a matter of reducing the amount of stumpage paid by that company so it looked like they made $12 million profit in their first full year of operation? I think it's a very pertinent question, Mr. Attorney-General, and one that should be looked into by you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member a quote from May, 18th Edition, page 766: "The administrative action of the department is open to debate but the necessity for legislation in matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the present administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General.
MR. SMITH: Oh, I think I'm confining my remarks very much to the present administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General because this is one area where he has full responsibility as chief law enforcement officer in this province, and I'm certain that he would agree with that.
Let's get back to the stock market hypothetical case. First of all, through announcements the government of the province depresses the stock market. They then, through authorized agents, buy shares. Then it's possible for the government to make announcements which will quickly inflate the value of the shares and bring them back up. While that is going on, it's entirely possible that the agent who represents the government could be instructed to unload the shares at the escalating price.
The problem is this: the Crown itself is not bound by the Securities Act, but some of the companies in which the government had acquired an equity are so bound, so there is a conflict of interest. What is the Securities Commission to do in such a situation? Does not conflict of interest abound on every side? The issue in my mind is clear. It's definitive; it requires immediate action.
Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, as chief law enforcement officer of this province you have a responsibility and an obligation to view these situations and, in my opinion, introduce legislation forthwith to protect the people of British Columbia from exploitation by Big Brother government. This, in my opinion, is happening today: through these corporations, which have become part of the NDP policy during the last 18 months, conflict of interest is rampant, and it's growing every day by leaps and bounds.
There is a trend to widespread adventurism on the part of government in the business sector. You've appointed boards and commissions, and granted to them powers above and beyond this Legislative Assembly — in some cases removing them from the jurisdiction of the courts of the land.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Name one.
MR. SMITH: You know full well the corporation I'm talking about; it's written into the statutes and you presented the statutes through this House.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Which one?
MR. SMITH: You're aware of them. You're aware of them. But this is happening on every area....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's a court appeal there.
MR. SMITH: There's no court appeal, as you know. There's a provision that they are above and beyond the call of....
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just request that the Hon. Members not speak from their seats, but rather wait until their turn comes to speak.
MR. SMITH: Pardon me?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm recognizing the Hon. Member for North Peace River, and I'm requesting that the Members not speak from their seats.
MR. SMITH: Well surely I don't mind, Mr.
[ Page 1040 ]
Chairman, if the Hon. Attorney-General wishes to interject and we can have a bit of a discussion across the floor. If he wants to raise a pertinent point and allow me to answer it while I'm on my feet, I don't mind that. But I respect your ruling as Chairman of the House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that the Hon. Member who has the floor, then, make it clear for Hansard.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I brought up a few matters in the last few minutes which we in the official opposition are vitally concerned about. I know that other Members of the House wish to participate in this debate this afternoon, and rather than go on to a number of other areas which I'll canvass with the Attorney-General some time during his debate, I will defer to other Members of the House at this time.
But I would just say this before taking my seat: in our opinion, the conflict of interest does exist; that in the opinion of the official opposition there is a tendency toward exploitation of individual citizens by Big Brother government in this province; that you have somehow become overwhelmed with the idea of becoming financial equity holders in many business, or equity holders in many businesses in the Province of British Columbia, if not to take them over outright.
It is a concern to the citizens of this province, and to echo the Minister's own words, I say it was time that the Hon. the Attorney-General let a little sunshine into the Province of British Columbia; that you fully accept your responsibilities as the chief law enforcement officer of this province and that you bring in legislation which will at least alleviate or prevent this conflict of interest which does exist and will get greater as time goes on.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the first point the Hon. Member made was very valid. Those who are vicious or violent or dangerous should not be considered in terms of the alternatives to incarceration that I have been talking about, because they are a menace to society. But you must bear in mind, Mr. Member, that for the most part, these are inmates of the federal penitentiary prison system by reason of the nature of the kind of crimes that we're talking about.
In respect to conflict of interest, this government is very conscious of the kinds of dangers that can creep into big business, whether or not the government has an interest in it.
For that reason we think there should be disclosure legislation and election expense legislation.
Partly for that reason we brought in a new Companies Act last year in which we tightened up — really for the first time — the insider trading provisions in the Companies Act, and we applied them whether or not it was a government company or a company in which the government had an interest.
If the government were to contrive to depress the price of the shares of a company in order to buy cheap, and then tout up those shares at a later date, it would be guilty of improper conduct, just as much as if it were done by a big company seeking to take over a little company. It does happen out in the business world. At least we're subject to the scrutiny of a legislature. It certainly would be improper; it hasn't taken place and it shouldn't take place.
MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): What recourse is there?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Legislature primarily, I suppose, which is more than you can say...except that I think it's also an offence under securities legislation. I would think so. I haven't tried to analyse specifically the point as to whether.... It may even be under the Criminal Code.
A lot of it goes on in the business-world jungle, and if that kind of thing were being perpetrated by government because they had an interest in a business, I'm sure that the complaint would, and should, be heard here in the Legislature. Those companies in which the government has an interest should be treated equally under the law — that's my particular responsibility — and under the same standards as their competitors. Of course, I'm speaking as Attorney-General in terms of their legal treatment.
As to whether Big Brother government is exploiting people, I'm not the Minister of Finance who is making the investments, but it seems to me that — far from this government exploiting people — for the first time in the history of this province we're finally arriving at the point where we're beginning to make them shareholders in their own resources.
You can call it democratic socialism or you can call it people's capitalism, but it's not exploiting people. The ordinary people of the province can finally have an equity interest in the wealthy resources of their own province. That's helping people.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Before I address a few remarks to the Attorney-General, I too would like to join the House in welcoming his most recent Deputy Minister.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Could I just introduce the two Associates? I didn't notice that they were right here. Sorry to take your place, Mr. Chairman, but Ed Epp is the Deputy Minister in the field of corrections, and Dennis Sheppard is the
[ Page 1041 ]
gentleman I mentioned earlier from Financial and Corporate Services.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Members of this side of the House have known Mr. Epp and Mr. Sheppard by experience in the department and in this House. I have had the pleasure of knowing your Deputy Minister as a member of the bar in the legal community, and I certainly welcome him here today. It's a pleasure to see a man of his calibre taking a position such as he has taken and performing his responsibilities with a diligence which is obvious. Attorneys-General need that kind of help.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Some more than others.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. However, we won't bother naming names, Mr. Attorney-General.
I also welcome the suggestion that the Financial Services Division of the Attorney-General's department is to be coordinated and given a senior person in control of it for the first time, so that the interrelationship of those financial services can be drawn together and their problems brought more clearly to the attention of the Attorney-General and the cabinet for the action which is required.
Certainly I think that Mr. Sheppard is a wise choice in that respect. I just hope it isn't too long, however, before Mr. Sheppard, through the Attorney-General, will be able to bring about some of the needed changes in that financial segment of the departmental responsibility — which under the previous administration was so long neglected, with consequences which we see on every hand, some of which will be raised later on in this debate.
I also can understand why the Attorney-General, in considering the matter of coordinating the efforts of the police and the prosecutors in the province to deal with the serious problem of crime, and particularly organized crime.... Mr. McMorran certainly comes with a wealth of credentials if he accepts this appointment.
I must say, however, that I have made a note of what the Attorney-General said, and I'm not sure that he was as complimentary to Mr. McMorran as he might have been. He said Mr. McMorran was a bit of a terrier and a bit of a bird dog.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was a joke.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, you know what you're saying, Mr. Attorney-General, when you speak of Mr. McMorran that way. When you contemplate the melding of a terrier and a bird dog, I'm just not quite sure that the Stewart McMorran I know exactly fits that image, somehow or other.
I'm sure the Attorney-General meant those as alternatives rather than conjunctives.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Different days.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'd like to deal briefly with the matter of the task which this policy board may be called upon to fulfill in the Province of British Columbia. It's a matter of assimilating and thereby drawing the best out of our police forces and our prosecutor organizations in B.C.
There's no question that that's required, but what concerns me — and I'd like the Attorney-General to assure me that my concern is unfounded — is that we're seeing drawn together in the hands of the provincial government a control over police forces and prosecutors throughout this province which, combined with the control the government already functions in the appointment of judges in our provincial court system, seems to me to establish a degree of control at the provincial government level which might be abused, not by this Attorney-General, I trust.
Once these things become consolidated, we end up with a sort of centralized police force controlled from Victoria, whose channels of control extend out to all the communities in the province.
These channels and this kind of control can be abused by government, to the detriment of the system of the administration of justice and citizens as a whole.
I've heard rumours that what we're going to face in this province is sort of a secret police force controlled by the provincial government. I've heard it rumoured, and I discount those rumours; but when you make this kind of announcement, Mr. Attorney-General, I think it is incumbent upon you to make clear the intent of your programme and the power and authority which may be vested in a board such as the one you mentioned.
If you don't make it clear beyond question, then these doubts in people's minds begin to be raised, and once raised they gather momentum which can only be detrimental to the administration of justice. So I hope that the Attorney-General would be prepared today — and if not today, before his vote is over on Thursday or Friday — to tell us exactly what it is that his programme envisions in this regard.
One of the most important things for government to recognize when implementing new policies and new programmes is the wisdom of making certain that the public clearly understands what is intended in advance, so that they make their representations either directly to the government or through the Members of the Legislature, hopefully bringing about proper changes in the concept.
This brings me to another subject, which was dealt with briefly by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and which the Attorney-General has
[ Page 1042 ]
taken some pains to express in this House and outside as well. That's the question of what we're going to do with our jails and with the people who find themselves in our jails or in the hands of the criminal justice segment of our law-enforcement system.
I must say that I was pleased to welcome a year ago the changes that were brought by legislation into our correction services. We had a good debate at that time expressing on all sides of this House the desire to ensure that — as the Attorney-General said in his speech earlier this session — we don't keep on making criminals in some of these institutions, and that we do our best to rehabilitate these people and make sure that they are returned to useful, productive positions in our community.
But when the Hon. Attorney-General spoke in debate on February 25, he said some things which made me wonder. I wonder if he could clear up this problem now. He said, and I'm reading from Hansard, Mr. Attorney-General, page 504, February 25, when you spoke in the budget debate this year: "We are determined to decriminalize the justice system."
I want to know what you mean decriminalizing the justice system. The system either falls on the civil side or the criminal side, and if you are involved in crime, it's criminal. How you are going to decriminalize that system I'm not sure.
But later on in the same page in Hansard, you said:
I think when we look at the people we're dealing with here that society should permit deviation unless there is an actual threat to somebody else's life or safety. In other words, I think the only right that society has to confine some person against his will is if it is to protect people from actual harm, and when I say that I mean harm that is significant and measurable and not simply inconvenience or nuisance.
Well, it's very easy to say those words, but what is the scale that you're going to use? What do you mean when you say, "actual harm that is significant and measurable"? Is a physical beating a measurable harm? Is a knifing measurable harm? Threat of a physical beating or knifing: is that a measurable harm? Is that significant?
I'd just like to hear the Attorney-General indicate how far we can deviate from what will be acceptable standards of conduct before we pass beyond the limit that the Attorney-General would set in his approach to either confining or providing some rehabilitative treatment for people who are in this condition.
I know that the Attorney-General has talked about the shortage of psychiatrists who are able to perhaps assist in making this definition. Are we going to wait until we have sufficient psychiatrists or are we going to embark upon these programmes before we're equipped to make what is a satisfactory measurement?
In this regard, Mr. Attorney-General, I have had it suggested to me by psychiatrists that sexual crimes which are accompanied with violence is a pattern of life you can't change. I trust that that's not the kind of deviation you mean.
The Hon. Attorney-General, in the answer to the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith), said that we're not talking about these people who find themselves in positions where they get into the federal institutions at the penitentiaries. I'd just like to have him clearly indicate how far he's prepared to go. What segment of society are we talking about in allowing them to deviate? And how much deviation are we prepared to allow before society must say, "Stop, we have to treat you in a particular way" — either by confinement or, as I say, rehabilitation?
Again, it's important that the Attorney-General clearly indicate what he has in mind in this respect and what his department has in mind. If the programme is worthy of consideration and implementation, hen we should make every effort to ensure that it's not going to fail because of the lack of understanding by people in our community.
We had the federal government embarked upon a similar course of action within its jurisdiction. We had quite a strong debate in the community, Canada as a whole, with respect to some of the actions that were taken by the federal Minister. Whether you agree with what Mr. Goyer was trying to do or not, the fact of the matter is that its failure was because of the inability of the federal government to inform the public accurately, to involve them in discussions at the community level, so that misunderstanding would disappear — or if not disappear, that many of the major questions in the minds of individuals in our society could be answered, and the fear and apprehension at the suggestion of a little bit of deviation as being okay, could be minimized.
I hope that the Attorney-General is successful in the programme of doing away with our jails. I don't think he will. I don't think society is yet ready or will be in five years, which is the time the Attorney-General appears to have set, to accept that particular concept. That doesn't mean, however, that we shouldn't start on the journey, because, like all journeys, we never will reach the end unless we will take the first step.
So let's take the first step, Mr. Attorney-General, but let us make sure that we're not going to be deterred in the journey.
We must take into account the enormous cost of crime and the enormous cost of criminals. It's an unnecessary, completely non-productive drain upon society. Everything we can do to diminish that cost must be applauded. But I trust that we will not be frustrated in the programme because of an anxiety on the part of the Attorney-General to get going, or of the staff, because of pressures which come from particular areas in our society to do something without involving the whole community in the
[ Page 1043 ]
debate.
Perhaps the Attorney-General would like to deal with some of those matters. There are other things I would like to raise with him later, Mr. Chairman.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the very thoughtful speech of the Hon. Member, I think it's important to lay at rest certain things such as any idea that the Attorney-General of British Columbia favours a centralized police force. I don't.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Or your government?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: This province is policed, apart from the provincial RCMP forces and the special forces of the federal RCMP by municipal police forces — I think there are 11 or 13 of them — and RCMP acting under municipal, provincial and federal contracts. I see nothing wrong with that. I like the idea of local option, where the local community can choose as to whether or not it shall have an RCMP contingent or go municipal, or vice versa.
I do point out that in 1976 the special financial arrangements between the provinces of Canada and the federal government with regard to RCMP policing come up. There will inevitably be discussions as to that financial formula. But, for my own part, I welcome the participation of the RCMP at all of those three levels in the policing of British Columbia.
I'd be a little afraid, quite frankly, of a monolithic police structure. I know that the Province of Ontario has got a provincial police. I don't think that I've heard of abuses. Quebec has the Quebec provincial police — and maybe I have heard of abuses. But I think it would be a mistake for a province to eliminate local option to the selection of their force, and I would hope that the financial incentives being provided by Ottawa will continue, even though I recognize that both the Province of Quebec particularly and the Province of Ontario have a special financial disadvantage in the kind of arrangements that have been made because they haven't bought the incentive.
In the case of the Province of Quebec, it's very hard for them to buy the incentive, which would be full RCMP policing. So they lose out under that particular formula. I wouldn't doubt that there'll be some adjustments. But I hope the incentive will be there and that we will retain the mix and that we will retain the local option.
Now the phrase "doing away with the jails" is a little too strong, because I have stressed that we need alternative custodial centres as well as alternatives to incarceration if we are to do away with what I do regard as the major schools for crime, such as Wilkinson Road and Oakalla.
We have to build up the alternatives, and that means building up a lot of smaller institutions centered in the community, some of which will be custodial.
I wish I could answer in more particular terms what I mean in terms of when a crime becomes not a victimless crime, for which if anything probation or other remedies should be available, if a correction is necessary, to those which really menace the community or some of its members. Certainly physical beating does; certainly knifing menaces the community. No question about that.
But I think all you can do is take each case by itself. The person who's engaged in a physical assault one time, going through a period of emotional stress and turmoil, may at a later period be no menace to the community at all in terms of violence. Other people may have an ingrained propensity to violence, and in that kind of a case I am not soft-hearted in terms of the rights and welfare of that offender, because I have to think in terms of the rights and welfare of the victim or potential victim as well. But I think those are, hopefully, a minority and will remain a fairly small minority of those who transgress our criminal laws. But they should be treated, where necessary, in custody.
I can't explain the sentence "de-criminalize the justice system." I think it must have been a stenographic error in the Hansard office.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!
HON. MR. MACDONALD: If I used that phrase, I think I didn't know what I was talking about. But what I intended to say....
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll accept that, yes. And I hope Hansard got that.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Arid it would not have been the first time. What I meant to say, really, was that we should take out of the criminal justice system those things that are victimless, those things that are illness, basically because it's addiction or alcoholism or it's mental instability, and treat them in some other way and still bear in mind that the rights of those people treating them that other way have to be governed by some sort of due process.
In any programme to reform the jail system, the necessity of public understanding, a point made by the Hon. Member, that I am glad has been stressed because the programme will fail unless we move slowly, unless we go out into the community and explain it, and receive the acceptance of it and the support of it, and the understanding of it which is vital to its success.
You know, it will even fail with the inmate population, some of whom have been conditioned, through long years of insecurity and inability to
[ Page 1044 ]
master their own problems, to some kind of motherhood, some kind of security behind brick walls and iron bars — and kind of gravitate back to that kind of a jail environment. Sometimes there's difficulty in getting inmates to leave a major jail institution and go out to a forestry camp, because in the place of bricks and mortar they feel some kind of security which satisfies a craving inside themselves. So public understanding and caution in the implementation of this programme is terribly important.
MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back to the question I asked the Attorney-General in question period which the Speaker graciously allowed me to ask — and the Attorney-General graciously answered — then ruled it out of order.
Basically, the point I would like to make is: a group of companies have been breaking the law over 10 years. I have staff out trying to estimate how much money is involved, but I suggest 1 per cent. In this article they mention the Vancouver International Airport, $32 million. Just the little one per cent skim is only $320,000. A one per cent skim of a Knight Road is what? — $160,000. You know, most businessmen like that little figure, one per cent. That's just one per cent for who? For a wintry cold day?
I would suggest to you, Mr. Attorney-General, if I can read this article:
"Taxpayers are not about to get back any extra money that may have been paid for federal buildings made with price-rigged cement or concrete."
Somehow I can't believe this is true because Mr. Basford said that the law now gives us no such right; but common law says that you cannot profit from a crime. These men committed a criminal act.
Correct me if I'm wrong; if it's not covered by statute law, common law prevails, and common law says they cannot profit from this crime. They have to give this money back.
I'm going to keep harping on this because I think it's well into millions and millions of dollars. Because in 10 years.... I can think of even other companies, individuals, being ripped off by these people, and I hate to say it, I'm a little old fashioned: I want my pound of flesh, Mr. Attorney-General.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You've got a few, Roy. (Laughter.)
MR. CUMMINGS: Judging by the federal Liberals.... At least they do stick together, Mr. Minister. They probably shake hands and agree that certain presidents of certain companies won't be investigated too closely.
AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.
MR. CUMMINGS: We'll leave that to you.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): You're blowing a good argument Roy. You just blew it.
MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Attorney-General, I think the common law prevails because it's not covered by statute. These men are not allowed to gain by their criminal acts of conspiring against the people. Thank you.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think the Hon. Member is raising a very valid question as to whether or not the legal advice that has appeared in the paper — and I haven't read the article yet, but I've been listening — is valid advice. Apparently a federal Minister, I think it was Herb Gray, said that there was no right of action vested in the federal government, although it had bought cement at presumably a rigged price, contrary to the criminal laws of Canada.
I would have thought that a person injured in that kind of a circumstance would have a civil right of action, but I'm not here to dispense immediate opinions.
The other interesting thing, though, as I said in question period, is whether there should be some kind of redress for consumers generally who are hurt by illegal acts of large corporations. Hurt in the sense that they paid too much for a product, or the product has turned out to be deleterious, dangerous, or defective.
You've got a whole class of consumers out there; I would think that we should look — and I'm sure this government is looking at the question of whether those people should have some kind of a class remedy against the offender.
If there is a difficulty in terms of the answer I gave at the beginning, if there's something wanting in our law, I think we should look at that too in terms of whether or not somebody who bought cement at too high a price should have a civil right of action. I think they do at the present time, but if they don't, perhaps we should be looking at it, and we will.
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like first to comment on the Attorney-General's statement about the law school in Victoria. I think it is, indeed, very unfortunate that it cannot begin this year. I would like to have some more documentation as to his comment that previous students have been unable to enroll. I can't remember the phrase that the Minister used — something like privileged families, or discrimination — there was some implication that you didn't get in on the basis of ability.
[ Page 1045 ]
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, your family has to be able to afford, say, seven years of higher education....
MR. WALLACE: But you have to have a slot to go to. You could have all the money in the world, but if you can't find a slot, any more than you can find a slot in the medical school, it doesn't matter if you're a millionaire.
I just want it very clearly on the record, Mr. Chairman, that I've seen, for example, the applications for 1971 to the medical school, and that was determined very clearly on the basis of academic ability, not on any question of who could afford what.
I think it would be a misfortune for this House to assume that some of our universities get up to tricks in deciding who can get into the available spaces. We have, as has been said in this House many times, 500 or 600 applicants for 60 places — that's for the medical school. I can't give you exact figures for the law school, but anyway that's in passing.
The subject has been raised of the question of handling of criminals. I think anyone who goes into our jails today and talks with the inmates, as I have done at both Wilkinson Road and William Head, will find, if they try to be objective at all, probably two thirds of them have no real reason to be in that jail. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be paying some penalty to society, never let that be the principle.
The principle is that we have people in our jails under circumstances which can only increase without question that opportunity for them to become more criminally oriented. No question about that. How anybody in their right mind can walk through Wilkinson jail and look at these cells, the square footage, the frightful hygienic facilities, the rotting shower stalls, the incredible conditions in the kitchen, which would not be tolerated in any public restaurant....
In fact I know that the medical officer of health in this community, two or three years ago, made recommendations about the kitchen in Wilkinson jail to bring it up to safety standards. How we don't have an outbreak of typhoid every other week in that institution, I'll never know. The inmates tell me that the flour bags are eaten in half by rats and mice before their flour gets around to being baked.
Now, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, let's not have a lot of airy-fairy philosophy about crime and criminology; let's get down to some very basic facts. And the basic facts are that we are all wasting our time talking about better management of crime when we have the shocking facilities that exist at Wilkinson Road jail.
I spoke about Wilkinson Road, I think, two years ago, and I was assured that something would be done.
I just cannot see any other conclusion than what has been happening, namely, a higher repeater incidence of people who have once been through the jail system in this province.
I don't want to talk in great length about the jails. I have an even more important subject which I'd like to raise, and I would like to comment under corrections and other votes on some of these matters. But there are two fundamental points that I think must be raised in the Minister's vote. One is this question of how much sincerity do we bring to our claim from both sides of this House that there are many people in jail who could be handled in a much more adequate way, who would be punished and who would learn a lesson but who, in fact, would have a real opportunity not to repeat the crime, or a real opportunity not to be dragged further into the criminal atmosphere.
Now, I spent two hours the other night talking to the inmates at William Head — I know that's a federal responsibility by and large....
AN HON. MEMBER: Was it a secret meeting?
MR. WALLACE: No, it wasn't a secret meeting. It was out in the open, or at least within the confines of the minimum security.
I might say, in passing, Mr. Chairman, that our federal government is about to spend $300,000 to build a fence around William Head, and apparently the record shows that nobody has ever gone over the fence in the first place. In passing I would say that there's an obvious need for much co-operation between provincial and federal authorities. But that's something I'd like to talk about under corrections.
These inmates and prisoners in William Head give this repeated theme that a person who is put in jail for a very limited period of time gets the message very quickly. I don't know how quickly that means — whether it's one month or two months or three months. But long jail sentences for many first offenders have the devastating effect of dragging these people into an area and a knowledge of criminality and pressure from other prisoners which create an indelible stamp on these individuals.
I hope the whole thrust and our policies in this province will be to find a more realistic and a more practical way of punishing offenders without, in fact, exposing them to many of the very serious criminal elements within the jail system.
But even if you have shorter sentences, as I'm suggesting.... By shorter sentences I mean sentences within a prison and with confinement of the inmate within a cell. I think any psychologist would say that to incarcerate anyone in the kind of cells that you have in Wilkinson Road cannot have anything but a very serious effect on that person's mental and physical health.
[ Page 1046 ]
Now, I don't mean by that that they're not well fed. I saw the food, and the food is, in my view, perfectly reasonable. I am told that it is very much the same thing day in and day out, and they tell me they want more fruit and vegetables.
But the mental and physical health of any person incarcerated in these small cells, and with the kind of shower facilities, which I'm sure are worse than some of the skid row conditions we hear described in Vancouver, and the kitchen facilities.... On the fact that the administrator of the jail has been appealing year after year after year for the most primitive basic needs for the prisoners in Wilkinson jail, I say that before we get carried away on long-term, five-year programmes, surely the shower facilities and the kitchen, at least, should be given immediate and urgent repairs.
Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, Professor Michael Jackson, of the University of B.C. Law School, spoke to the Vancouver People's Law School last year. This report was of February last year and he says: "Prison sentences for B.C. are five times the national average." Five times the national average. We just seem to find that the easiest way to deal with an offender is shut him up behind the kind of bars I've described in the Wilkinson Road, and to all intents and purposes forget about him and the kind of incidents I came across at William Head. Somebody spends four or five years in jail and they get put out on the street with $22 in their pocket and no job. Then we wonder why they get into other problems of drugs or crime or what-have-you.
It's quite true, as the Member next to me says, that the high incidence of drug offences is one of the reasons that we have a high prison population because, of course, up until now, prison has been regarded as a solution for the drug problem. And that's just absolutely the craziest, most useless way to try and handle drug addiction — put them in jail. Because if they have some emotional or mental instability, or a personality problem that puts them on to drugs in the first place, you lock them up in a place like Wilkinson Road, in a little cell five feet by eight feet, or whatever it is, and not even give them decent hygienic facilities to live in and wash in, and no degree of privacy, it's completely de-humanizing, You know, if that's what we want in society, okay. Let's just come out and not hide any of the facts from the public. But if we stand up here and say that we're in a more enlightened era and that we realize this crime situation is just dealt with on a treadmill — by dumping them in jail and de-humanizing them in the way I've said, and then turn them out on the street and expecting them to be upstanding citizens with productive jobs in society — we're crazy. We're talking in two different directions at the same time.
I just think that it's about time that the practical aspects of this whole business of a jail system were put on record.
I just couldn't help reflecting on a headline as up to date as Tuesday, March 5: "Murderer Gets Life Term." I just want to quote a little part of this statement. I won't mention names, but this person was found guilty of murder. I don't think that one needs to express the details or anything else, but simply to say that the convicted person made some rude remarks to the judge. But the point that really impressed me, when I had been thinking in terms of a more enlightened approach to criminality and the handling of criminal behaviour, was that this person had been sent to reform school when he was eight years old.
Now, I don't know what the reform school was like, or what the facilities were like compared to the institution I've just quoted, but it must be a most serious and traumatic action to take to put an 8-year old in reform school. It said that he had been out of institutions only two-and-and-a-half months by the time he turned 18 years old.
All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that there's something wrong — whether it's our medical system, our social system, our penal system or all three, I don't know. But here is this man at age 26; he commits murder and he's sentenced for a minimum of 10 years in jail.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat the point, as the Hon. Member from....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It was a minimum of 15 years.
MR. WALLACE: Oh. Well, this quote must be wrong, Mr. Attorney-General. I'm quoting from the newspaper: "The law calls for a minimum of 10 years to be served before parole can be considered."
HON. MR. MACDONALD: The judge made it 15.
MR. WALLACE: Anyway, I just want to make it very plain, as the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound made it plain, that we're not being soft — or I don't wish to promote the idea of being soft — on violent criminals and people who are a menace to society. In no way am I suggesting that we should be any less careful than we are with this kind of situation. But I say if this person was abnormal in his behaviour at eight years old, I wonder to what degree the mechanism by which he was handled, and the facilities in which he was placed, dragged him into this continuing criminal atmosphere which, as I say, leads to more and more offences, and finally the ultimate offence of murder.
I think this illustrates the fact that somehow our approach and our attitude and our enlightenment as to criminality, particularly in the young offender,
[ Page 1047 ]
needs some fresh look and some different way of sentencing and following up.
Under "corrections" I would like to talk about the probation officer problem and the fact that it would seem to me that we need more people to investigate more adequately the circumstances of a person when he or she commits an offence, and we can talk about pre-sentence reports and so on.
The other point that I think is just shocking and incredible is the way in which the mentally disordered offender can be shut up for life in this province. And that's no exaggeration — no exaggeration at all, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to ask a question: how many legally sane people are locked up in mental institutions because of faults in the legal, process and sheer administrative incompetence?
I know the Attorney-General is sympathetic to this issue, and I'm very happy about that. But just like the mess in Wilkinson Road jail, I think it is about time that we put on the record just exactly what has been happening in this province over the last several years in dealing with a person who, at the time of his offence, appears — and I use the word "appears" very advisedly — to have some emotional or mental disorder.
I think in this issue we should give credit to Jack Wasserman of The Vancouver Sun for the tenacious way in which he's done an excellent job for journalism by illustrating some of the details of this situation. I think we also, in this House, should pay credit to Dr. Foulkes who, in his Foulkes report, has delineated the problem and suggested a solution. I would like to quote parts of the Foulkes report and pay credit to Dr. Foulkes for the work he has done on this subject.
The fact is that 9 per cent of the total Riverview population are order-in-council patients — and I'm quoting from the Foulkes report. And just to quote the way in which the Foulkes report pages are numbered, I have to say that I'm not very pleased about that, but that's just a minor detail — page section IV(c), 13-4 states: "They" — namely the inmates — "are not patients but prisoners who are sentenced to an indeterminate period of preventive detention on the grounds that they might be dangerous to society."
Mr. Chairman, what happens is that the person who appears to be emotionally disordered is examined by one physician who makes a recommendation to the judge, and then the Attorney-General is often asked to issue an order-in-council that the prisoner be held during the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor. Again, I pay credit to the Attorney-General. It's publicly stated as recently as Saturday: "A.G. Backs Test Case on Riverview." So I'm not disputing in any way the Minister's sympathy, but I think the people must understand what has been happening and the urgency with which this situation must be corrected.
We also have the action of a lawyer, Robert Gardner, in Vancouver, who has taken up this issue and attempted to find out just what the legislation has been and why it has been possible to lock these people up and not give them periodic reviews to establish if they are, in fact, still disordered and still a menace to society.
Unfortunately the Attorney-General's department hasn't been as flexible as it might have been in the case of dealing with one, at least, of the problems. I don't want to go into all the details, Mr. Chairman, but the fact is that Mr. Gardner tried to deal with the case of a person whose name was just reported as "Bill," who had been held for 79 days. When finally Mr. Gardner got into court, Bill just very conveniently was discharged the same day, which, according to reports, somewhat weakened the case for the lawyer, who said that the matter was then of academic significance.
Interjection.
MR. WALLACE: Well, you explain it if you will, Mr. Attorney-General, but the fact is that people are there who, in the first instance, might have been emotionally or mentally disordered but who have been kept there by various legal technical devices which, in all effects, means that they are there on an indeterminate sentence which might well last the rest of their lives.
Whether the Attorney-General has a conflicting explanation to what I'm saying or not, I certainly would like to quote from The Vancouver Sun again, of February 8. I'm getting ahead of myself, but what happened was that Mr. Gardner appealed the court decision and the matter was put before five judges of the supreme court of B.C.
"They" — the judges — "also criticized the Attorney-General for failing to provide Gardner with the names of persons held at Riverview, and at one point Mr. Justice Branca suggested that the attitude showed 'contempt of the rights of the court.' Commented Mr. Justice Branca: 'If 20 to 40 people are being held illegally, the Attorney-General should give every assistance to a practitioner who might want to help them.' "
As I say, on a later date — March 9 — the Attorney-General is quoted as saying that he will consider revealing one or two names of patients in Riverview Hospital, provided this doesn't endanger their privacy and does not do harm to their health.
But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the forensic services in this province, and presumably the medical staffing, are inadequate in quantity to deal with the needs of people who find themselves in this situation.
[ Page 1048 ]
The public of the province probably wonder how this can happen, and it happens quite easily in one of four ways. As I say, if the person appears unstable, one physician — and I'm not sure that's a good idea either. We're all fallible and we all make mistakes, and I feel that one....
Interjection.
MR. WALLACE: Well, the physician might be unstable, too. I don't know.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'd decimate the opposition.
MR. WALLACE: But the fact is that when we commit somebody on the basis of declaring them insane, we do require two medical signatures if they haven't committed a crime. I would suggest right off the bat that there should be no different attitude or no differing attitude to a person whose sanity is being questioned on the basis of a crime.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is two there, too.
MR. WALLACE: Well, in this case we must take issue with the Foulkes report, because the Foulkes report on page chapter IV(c) 13-5, under paragraph 3, says that "a magistrate or judge, satisfied by the evidence of one physician...." So the Foulkes report must be wrong.
Another way that this can happen is that during trial a person may be found unfit to plead, or to stand trial. And this decision, apparently, can be made at any time during the trial of a person.
Of course, the worst one of all, perhaps, is that a person may be found guilty by reason of insanity, and disappears into the institution and apparently can be kept there for some considerable time.
This Mr. Gardner who made the case said that there are instances where persons remanded literally disappear out of the courtroom and never get back. In case people are saying,"Well, this is all exaggeration," I should just quote one of the articles that Jack Wasserman wrote on February 14, 1974.
He rather ironically entitles his article: "Gulag Archipelago West" and sort of mentions that in some ways the fate which might befall a citizen in this province may not be too different from what happens in Soviet Russia. To make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, he says the big difference is that the people handling the problem here are very well-meaning and in no way are trying to be unfair to the victim, but in fact, with the process of law as it now is — or the lack of process — they do indeed suffer considerably.
The case he quoted on February 14 was the case of a young man — he doesn't quote the age. On January 31 the lawyer saw his client in the cell and considered that he was calm enough to appear in the courtroom, and went into court expecting to have the person produced.
The prosecutor explained that the prisoner was under the effect of this order-in-council issued by the Attorney-General. It was not the policy to bring insane people into court. Then the case was set over. At a later date the lawyer turned up and the prisoner was not produced. Then, to put the whole judicial system in a state of what I consider unbelievable mockery, at a later remand date the lawyer and the judge, who by this time was very concerned because he wondered what on earth was going on, apparently turned up but again the prosecution argued that the prisoner could not be produced to the court.
I quote from the Jack Wasserman column of February 14: "But later the same afternoon, after the defence lawyer had left, the accused was brought from his cell to another court room. He spent one minute in front of another judge who issued an order." Now, it seems to me that this is a tremendously serious, frivolous way to play with somebody's freedom. If the Attorney-General has decided to correct this, then of course this is good news.
I would just like, in finishing these comments, Mr. Chairman, to make it very plain that in the fall of 1969 the federal government made it possible for order-in-council review boards to be set up. In June of 1969 the Canadian Criminal Code was amended to allow the appointment of a board of review. The concept was that any person in this situation should have his case reviewed at least six months after entering jail, and every six months as long as he remained in that situation.
In March of 1969 the Deputy Attorney-General of British Columbia did indeed set up a review board. But here again, the incredibility of the whole thing is that that review board only sees persons referred to it by the Attorney-General's office. Again the Attorney-General shakes his head; again the Foulkes report is wrong.
Foulkes report, Part IV, Section C, Chapter 13, page 7:
"However, the British Columbia board, not being a statutory body, differed from the Criminal Code provisions in one major respect. It only sees those persons who are referred to it by the Attorney-General's office. It falls very short of reviewing all order-in-council persons every six months."
The Attorney-General may wish to answer this. It's a very serious situation that I'm raising. From the press reports, he's favourable to doing something about it. I'm sure he will. If he's questioning the accuracy of the Foulkes report, I think it should be clearly on record that Dr. Renee Goldsmith-Kasinsky, criminologist, who I understand is now at the
[ Page 1049 ]
University of Calgary, did a study. In fact, I understand that perhaps the kind of work he did and the efficiency of his research was probably one of the best parts of the whole Foulkes report in terms of the depth into which the doctor pursued his investigations and the accuracy of his report. If the Foulkes report is inaccurate it is a condensation of this very detailed report which was prepared by Dr. Goldsmith-Kasinsky.
On that basis I would hope the Attorney-General in sincerity might consider, or the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in conjunction with Dr. Foulkes might consider, making Dr. Goldsmith-Kasinsky's research work available so that we can all read it and find out the facts and discuss any points he has raised if such points are in dispute.
I do understand that Dr. Goldsmith-Kasinsky went very much to the heart of the matter and illustrated the tremendous dangers there are of mentally-disordered people finishing up in a mental institution for years and years and years without even access to a medical review.
The Foulkes report goes on to talk about a therapeutic bill of rights. I think this is an excellent idea. The basic idea behind the therapeutic bill of rights is to ensure that by various ways a person who is kept in such an institution on the basis of an order-in-council will be subject to periodic review. I don't just mean one minute before a judge where one person says one little phrase or sentence and the person goes back to the place he was at two minutes before. I mean the realistic medical assessment of that person's mental and physical condition.
There is real need for boards, perhaps not only with medical people but certainly with social and legal people as well, to try and determine that the individual who was admitted to the institution because of a criminal offence supposedly based on his mental state should have access to review.
The Foulkes report also makes another very good point. Since these people have nobody to turn to, there should be what they call an ombuds-person appointed for the individual prisoner who finishes up being incarcerated in such an institution. For all of these involuntary committals there should be a centralized record open to public inspection.
I don't think that in our society today we should be left wondering whether it's 10 or 30 or 40 people; we should know that this is a real problem. In the cold light of day and as a consequence of the kind of review I'm talking about, I am quite willing to recognize that maybe three-quarters of these patients still require some form of supervision and restraint. I'm not denying that. But I don't care if 99 per cent of them need the care. The fact is there might just be that one person who could be treated and returned to society.
After all is said and done, our medical capacities and our availability of treatments and medications are changing very rapidly. I'm not even sure that a review every six months is often enough; it may well be that these cases should be reviewed every three months.
We have to look, as did Dr. Foulkes and his colleagues, at the question: are we really dealing in these situations with a problem for the Corrections Branch or are we looking at what is essentially a medical-social problem? The Foulkes report makes the recommendation, and I certainly agree with it entirely, that the major responsibility for these persons should be conferred to the Department of Health. I think they use the words, "major responsibility," wisely meaning that there must still be an element of corrections involved for the very reason I have said several times: society must be protected, and we must be sure that persons who are a menace to society will not be released on false evidence or on misjudgment of some medical examiner.
On the other hand, the decision about whether the criminal or the patient has improved or got worse or is just the same as he was when he came in has to be a medical decision.
I hope that when the Attorney-General answers this point he will say that these order-in-council review boards will become realistic, they will function, and everybody will be assured of a review every six months. It won't be one minute before the judge who has one person saying something very quickly and puts him back in what in effect is a prison.
In case anyone says I'm exaggerating, I've quoted this case — and I haven't heard it being denied — that Mr. Wasserman wrote about on February 14. It isn't enough in my view to say that maybe the majority of these persons still require restriction of their freedom because of their mental incapacity. I recognize this may be so. But I don't care if there are 50 in there and 49 of them still need to be there. That 50th one deserves to be back in society. Right now there is a real risk, proven risk, that he might be there for the next 20 years.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should answer at this time because otherwise some of the things that have been said by an Hon. Member might pass out of my memory.
The Hon. Member made a very good plea for phasing out the kind of institutions, and not only their conditions, such as we witness at Wilkinson Road. I appreciate that, because, as I say, we need public co-operation and debate. We have to go out in the community and find alternate sites. Just finding those sites for a residential community's treatment facility is difficult, because people are up to the bell and they say, "not in Kerrisdale" or "not in Point Grey."
[ Page 1050 ]
Interjection.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Really, people have got to understand...
MR. SMITH: Not in Coquitlam.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...that we need that kind of community response and help in finding the kind of smaller units that can be alternatives to the kind of prisons that the Hon. Member was speaking about.
We have in the last year — I think it's in the last year — managed nevertheless to have a decrease in our institutional inmate population of 16 per cent, and we have had an increase in the numbers of those on probation of 18 per cent. Our record in Canada is pretty good, but not as good as it should be.
I think I was a little shamed by the Province of Quebec. I don't know whether I properly absorbed their figures, but le Ministre de Justice, Jerome Choquette, was parading some very strong statistics in support of their probation programme, and we don't want to fall behind. Even though we have the drug thing worse than they do....
MR. WALLACE: Fix up Wilkinson jail — that should be done right now. It's incredibly inhuman.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's part of our phasing out programme and I don't want to give exact dates on this five-year programme where certain things happen. We have it diagrammatically laid out, and on certain months of certain years certain institutions are supposed to drop out of sight. Now, I don't think it would be fair to my staff to give those as being definitive, firm dates because everybody is trying their best, but I can assure you that in the course of that five-year chart, Wilkinson Road drops out of sight. I'm not going to name the year but it's a fairly soon year.
MR. WALLACE: Are they going to eliminate these conditions until they do drop out of sight?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think we're doing our best. We haven't had a report of mice in the flour, but that's the kind of thing we're trying to take care of. My good Deputy says the showers at Wilkinson Road are being fixed, and there are small things that we're doing like that, but the main thing is to phase it out.
Interjection.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: We haven't even got showers in the Legislative chambers — do you know that? I've got Deputy Ministers who want to bicycle to work and they say they've got to have a shower before they can take their place behind their desk.
Interjections.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: No handball courts.
The case that the Hon. Member mentioned of the boy in family court is a serious case. Apart from the brutalizing effect of the jail system that's almost led to that murder, another thing we can do is have a family court system where a family counselor, with his probation or social welfare people — call them what you will, serving under him — can spot this kind of a case before it becomes serious. It might be from a school report. It might be from a home report, but before he even enters the court system of the family court, there is a kind of a vetting, an assessing process and a counseling process that's going to take place.
If Hon. Members, as I'm sure they have, read the Berger interim report, where we intend to start the pilot project in the South Fraser Judicial District, they'll see that this kind of preventive law is something that's an urgent necessity.
In terms of those who are in Riverview, I confess that the situation is not good. We have three different kinds of cases there. We have the remand case, which is under a section of the Criminal Code where somebody is remanded for psychiatric observation or found by the judge not fit to stand trial. I'm not contesting the Foulkes report in this respect, except to say that we've been able to have two psychiatrists' reports for all of the cases I've looked at in the last year. Maybe he's referring to an earlier period. But nevertheless they go. They drop out of sight of the court.
If they're in there for a lengthy period of time they would come before the review committee, which is Dr. Harold Keenleyside and Drs. Myles, Richardson and Gareski — three of them sitting together. They can't see these people, although we've said it should be on a periodic basis. Too often people apply to them and they do their best. It is not a statutory tribunal under the code as such. It's a review committee with an extra stipend paid to the judge, who's doing very good and humane work, and he makes his recommendations. Perhaps it should be statutory.
Maybe that'll help, but we're looking at more than that. You have the remand people there. You've got those not guilty by reason of insanity, which are the kind that worry us most, because they may have committed physically a murder and then they're found not guilty by reason of insanity, but are they still dangerous? They could be.
Then you have those who are transferred serving sentence. They're already in an institution. In terms of the criticism of the court, I'm not worried about being criticized by a court, but this was preliminary
[ Page 1051 ]
to the judgment and when the judgment came down Mr. Justice Seaton said at that time when he'd heard the full report: "I do not attach an improper motive to the Attorney-General's department in his refusal to divulge names."
Interjection.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but even the minority judgment said this. I don't want to read it all, because if somebody criticizes us, then that's fine. If the criticism is valid we want it. This information drew from the applicant the statement that a name had been supplied, but before the application could be determined he too was released to the court from which he had been remanded for a second time. Well, I have no doubt that this was pure coincidence. The Crown nevertheless took the position. It's true that we did supply two names. It's true we are very reluctant to supply any names, because there are people that two psychiatrists have said are mentally incompetent, and do you really have their consent?
We did supply two names in this case to Mr. Gardner. He went to court on one of the names and that person happened to be released. Then he went on to appeal on a no-name basis to test the technical point whether you could go on a no-name basis instead of using the other name we had supplied to him. Well, I'm not criticizing him for that, but we are prepared now to co-operate.
One of the greatest problems is purely in terms of personnel. I've got a letter here from Dr. Duffy. I suppose there's no harm. He's a great public servant who hangs about Oakalla Prison and he does a marvelous job, but when I suggested in the remand cases that we've got to take them back to court anyway rather than have them continued on a treatment basis by the letters of psychiatrists, he points this out. He said when he heard about this: "It'll be an enormous increase in the time spent in court appearances." For example, it would have meant to him 11 court appearances this month so far, of which six would have entailed a whole day because they were in the Interior of the province. "The extent of this workload was never envisaged in our original agreement of two years ago. I can see no way in which I can continue to assume responsibility for these examinations," if he has to go into court and defend them under cross examination.
This is a problem — the resources to create proper forensic services as auxiliaries for the court. I hope that we will begin to find those resources. I hope there will be legislation this session — we're working hard on it — to begin to pull things together.
I think the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who is in his place and signing his mail, should be the one to introduce that because I think it's a health problem. I know I've got responsibilities under the Criminal Code, but to the extent they could be treated on a health basis, I want them so treated. I hope that the Hon. Minister will bring in forensic service legislation at this session and that we'll be able to find the medical and psychiatric resources to build that up into a thing which will not only protect society but protect the people who, as my friend says, may be incarcerated when in fact they're not dangerous.
In terms of those committed under the mental health Act, if the Hon. Minister of Health wants to say what safeguards he has, I would be glad to hear from him. We lack some of the safeguards right now....
MR. WALLACE: Only if they're reviewed every six months.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, just to finish that, if we go on with the present system, there's no way this committee can see — I think there are 120 people. The 9 per cent figure is probably right. There's no way the district judge and two psychiatrists can see them all in that period. We'll have to reshuffle. We've told them: "See those who apply just as often as you can." We check their cases, but it is not periodic yet. There would not be the resources under that review board to do it on a six-month basis, and if we don't find something better in the meantime we're going to have to beef up the reassessment review board personnel.
HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, just so that we can divide up the two categories at the present time, I recall last session of the Legislature we voted, I believe, in this House unanimously on a new form of appeal to those that are committed by medical commitment or that kind of commitment. That medical appeal board is now working. There's an advocate for the patient, there's an advocate for the institution itself and a neutral chairman.
Interjection.
HON. MR. COCKE: No. That's the trouble, Mr. Member. That's why the thing is so confusing. On one side we've got the criminal or the forensic situation, and then on the other side we have the medical commitment. So I'm just trying to outline what we've done there. Those review panels are now working. As a matter of fact, I'm having to appoint more chairmen in order to look after the number of people and cases that are being put forward. It's working very well to all intents and purposes.
Interjections.
[ Page 1052 ]
HON. MR. COCKE: Of course, that's something I can't forecast at the present time. But certainly we're looking into all different kinds of new ways.
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would like to explore just a little further with the Attorney-General, discussing his salary today, what I consider to be, unless he offers an even stronger assurance than we've had so far in response to the statements of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), a move towards a centralized police force. I feel that it is a potentially explosive situation.
If the Attorney-General wants to correct me, then I will accept the correction. But the record will show it: there is a draft police Act in the Attorney-General's office. It has not reached the floor of the House and it envisages, as I believe my informants are correct, a combination of RCMP and municipal forces in certain functions if not in fact. It perhaps will greatly interfere with career police officers who have been involved in municipal departments throughout the province for quite some time — and there are 12 of them.
When I was speaking in the budget debate in February — and the Minister was not present at that time — I attempted to sound a note of caution to him in this regard, saying that I couldn't over-emphasize my concern that, if not the Attorney-General, at least some of his senior departmental people, some academics perhaps, were trying to put together this new organization which would greatly upset the policing arrangements we have and which are functioning in a generally satisfactory manner in a number of communities in British Columbia. We don't want a repeat of the Bremer affair.
What is Dr. John Hogarth doing? Is Dr. Hogarth working on a draft? Has the draft been presented to you? Is it coming to the session? To this session? Is it well over 100 pages? Does it see a centralized move with respect to a B.C. police commission and a concurrent diminishing of the authority of local police commissions?
Let's not just talk about Vancouver city because so many things which this government seems to want to correct centre on the Vancouver city situation. Let's talk about some of the other municipal police departments.
Are we going to have a single and quite powerful B.C. police commission? Why are proposals being put forward to greatly increase the number of sheriffs' officers and to give them new duties in British Columbia? There are approximately 200 sheriffs now; is that a reasonable estimate? Well, may there be 350 or 400 before these changes take place?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: At best, to release the police for police duty.
MR. CURTIS: I see. To release police for police duties.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's up to the courts. It's nothing to do with the police.
MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm pleased to hear that and I do hope that goes into the record. There is very great concern that we are going to have some dramatic changes in the policing organization in the province. I hope the Minister therefore will tell us about Dr. Hogarth and his commission and some of the meetings he has held with representatives of police departments and some of the other individuals who have policing interests at heart, where they've been shown material and that material has, under insistence, been returned before the meetings have concluded.
How does the Attorney-General see any amalgamation or increased involvement between RCMP and municipal police forces? Let me make it very clear that there's no concern here with respect to standardization. The throne speech, as I recall, indicated there would be an attempt to standardize equipment, the type of training made available to policemen and women, vehicles, a variety of equipment and materiel used by police forces. That's perfectly satisfactory to have that kind of standardization? But are we moving towards some sort of centralized police organization? That is one of the most important questions to be asked in this discussion, I suggest, Mr. Chairman.
Events in the next weeks and months will show whether the rumours which have reached me, and which obviously have reached the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, are just that. Are they rumours or do we have something very, very serious developing in British Columbia? An interference, nothing more nor less than an interference, with the autonomy which has been left in the hands of communities for a good number of years through their duly-appointed police commissions, carrying out the kind of involvement with police departments, with their police unions, and working in a generally satisfactory manner.
Perhaps the Minister of Labour, if he has a few moments, would like to jump into this discussion and indicate what might happen to the police associations which now deal with their individual municipal councils and individual police commissions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member the section again in May, 18th edition, page 766. "The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." It's permissible to discuss these matters, providing you relate them to the present administrative responsibilities of the
[ Page 1053 ]
Minister.
MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I can do that very easily. You may disagree. I see that you're being relieved by a different chairman at the moment. Perhaps he's fresh from the outside.
[Mr. Liden in the chair.]
AN HON. MEMBER: He's even tougher.
MR. CURTIS: He's even tougher, yes. I'm not speaking about Bill 2; I'm not engaging in anticipation. I'm not discussing the necessity for legislation.
I want to hear today, a lot of members of police departments want to hear today, and a lot of citizens in communities of British Columbia want to hear today just what is going on in the Attorney-General's department in terms of a new police Act for this province. If the Minister can reassure us, then fine; I won't raise the matter again in this session. If the Minister does not give the kind of answer which I believe is essential, then I'll be on my feet again, Mr. Chairman.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to discuss pending legislation. On the other hand, I don't want fears to go out in the community in respect to this kind of thing, because it's rather dangerous.
Therefore, in terms of fulfilling recommendations which are longstanding in this province, including going back to the previous government, for a B.C. police commission, I've engaged in maximum consultation.
It's true we've had two conferences: one at Cecil Green Park where I spent the whole day, and another one in the Hotel Devonshire a short while ago. That has included a very wide spectrum of the community, including municipal police, RCMP, civil liberties, Indians, police chiefs, just about everybody. The second one was actually considering a draft Act, which I think is good. I suppose that material was returned at the end of the meeting because it was proposals that were being developed.
There's no occasion to fear that there won't be municipal police commissions. There's no reason for chiefs, like my good friend Fraser Macdonald, to become excited about collective bargaining because collective bargaining will prevail. There's no fear that we're going to have just one B.C. police force. I'm trying to make that absolutely plain; it's not going to be that. It's nothing to do with turfing out the RCMP or having one B.C. police force.
It's going ahead on a basis of maximum consultation, a great consensus, and it'll be presented shortly to the House.
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Always happy to discuss with the legal fraternity all the problems of law.
Interjection.
MR. FRASER: I would like to bring up the Indian land claims that have been going on for some time in this province, and probably give a little background on how the NDP government has handled our natives so far.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The Hon. Premier has assigned that question to the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi).
MR. FRASER: Here we go again.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: In terms of legal participation, I'll be glad to answer questions. But I just want to draw that distinction.
MR. FRASER: Well, I was just coming up to that.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that after the removal of the Hon. Frank Calder, who was looking into Indian affairs, the Premier assumed the responsibilities. They went from there to Human Resources, but I am given to understand that the Premier delegated the problem of land claims to the Attorney-General. Is that right?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a legal aspect altogether.
MR. FRASER: There's no other aspect to it, Mr. Chairman, than legal. That's exactly what I want to talk about, so we didn't get shuffled down too far there, hopefully.
They have been going on for some time. I'd like to know what they're going to do about the national government. The federal government is entertaining these claims across the nation, and there have been supreme court cases on it. I would just like to bring you up to date as to where I consider these claims are now in the Province of British Columbia; they're becoming quite widespread. I don't think that they can be brushed under the rug any longer by the Attorney-General, who is in charge of the legal aspect of them.
The first claim, of course, by the B.C. natives is the aboriginal claim to the land of the province, based on the concept of native title held by various tribal groups before the white settlement began. That's one claim they have. The other is the claim to lands cut from the B.C. Indian reserves by a royal commission of 1912-1916 known as the McKenna-McBride commission.
[ Page 1054 ]
There are 23 Indian bands which lost reserve land as a result of forming a united front, and they're now forming a united front to pursue claims settlements from the B.C. government.
Representatives of the bands will meet in Victoria, Mr. Chairman, on March 19 and 20 in discussion of gaining compensation for the 37,000 acres that are involved; and I refer to the 37,000 acres involved due to the actions of the McKenna-McBride commission.
On March 19 and 20 the Indian Affairs Minister from Ottawa will meet the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to discuss their aboriginal claim. The committee was set up by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs after the federal government indicated willingness to negotiate settlement on the claim to lands which were never ceded to colonial, provincial or federal governments.
The Ottawa decision to negotiate was made last year after federal authorities considered a general claim by the union, and the supreme court of Canada split on a claim by the Nishga Indians — which the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) certainly knows about — for a declaration of title to 4,000 square miles of the Nass River watershed.
Agreement of the provincial government, Mr. Chairman, is necessary to any settlement because land in Canada is held by the provinces.
Commenting on the cut-off land claim, Phillip Paul, director of land claims research for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, said in a statement that B.C. reserves have also lost land in other ways, and additional meetings will be held to discuss such losses.
Paul said there will be 192 bands in British Columbia that have lost land in one way or another, whittled down by the encroachment of whites, government surveys, orders-in-council by federal governments and provincial governments, and surrenders of sale carried out by the Indian Affairs Department.
Mr. Chairman, the B.C. bands that are affected by this — some of them are in the Cariboo Riding; the first one named, as a matter of fact, is in the Cariboo: the Alexandria band; the next is the Becher Bay; Chemainus; Clinton is another one in the riding of Cariboo; Kitwanga; Lower Kootenay; Nazko is another one in the Cariboo; Okanagan; Osoyoos; Port Simpson; Quatsina; Seton Lake; Chehalis; Squamish; Ulkatcho — another one in the Cariboo, and upper Similkameen.
I'd like to relate how these are causing problems now because the provincial government has not indicated that they will sit down with the B.C. Indian Chiefs and the federal government about these. I refer to the Nazko band, who are one of the bands that claimed. They are in an area in the riding of Cariboo, some 75 miles west of Quesnel.
There is a large forest development planned there. This band is certainly opposed to this on the basis of the aboriginal rights. Of course, by this the forest service is being held up at the present time; they have the road permit for this development where 1,000 jobs will be affected 12 months from now if these claims aren't faced up to squarely.
I think the time has come when the provincial government, through the Attorney-General, should sit down and negotiate that. I realize that in North Vancouver there is a Squamish band and so on — and Osoyoos — but I really think we've got real trouble ahead if we don't sit down and negotiate. Particularly on the McKenna-McBride commission it seems that they just lopped different land off different reserves throughout the province without consulting with the Indian bands of that day. It looks like they just stole their property. If this is the case, the province is going to have to compensate them for it in some way.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that all the Attorney-General has ever said is that he's never had a formal invitation from the Minister of Indian Affairs with the federal government. I assume that he's going to wait until he's not even the Attorney-General any longer unless he gets a formal, engraved invitation. I don't think this is good enough. I say it's going to upset the economy of our country, and we've got to sit down with these people.
I believe that the Attorney-General recently has had a meeting and so has the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), but I don't think that was a three-party meeting, which is going to have to come about; I refer to the federal, provincial and the legal people of the B.C. Indian Chiefs.
Another item I'd like to bring up here, Mr. Chairman — I don't think this is out of order — is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their relationship to the province and to the municipalities.
Maybe the Attorney-General can help. First of all, I would like to comment here while we're on law enforcement. I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General for relieving the municipalities of the administration of justice. There are a lot of things there that have got to be cleared up. No doubt you have the answers; maybe you can have your Deputy make a note of them.
I have just recently had correspondence from citizens wanting to know if the RCMP, because of the provincial government taking over the administration of justice, will no longer be required for escort duties. In this move are you going to relieve the RCMP of escort duties — in other words, to put them on straight police duty?
You know, these young RCMP fellows love escort duty; they get an airplane ride from Fort St. John or Williams Lake, and they are allowed to spend the night in the big city and return. I have nothing against that but I have heard that they're going to be relieved of this in your move to have them concentrate more on prevention of crime. If so, I'd like to know about
[ Page 1055 ]
that.
On the takeover of the administration of justice, several figures have been bandied about as to how much relief it will give to the municipalities.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to throw out that maybe here I'm not so sure that this may be a fiscal advantage to the province. You're going to get all the fines and, of course, all you have to do is increase the fine structure and you're away with making a profit after you've assumed the liability....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, you're discussing the bill that's on the order paper and you should refrain.
MR. FRASER: In what way?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 2.
MR. FRASER: Oh, well, I'm still going to discuss the RCMP.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you can discuss the RCMP; discuss that bill under the....
MR. FRASER: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I wish the other chairman was in the chair; he's a lot easier to get along with. (Laughter.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: You'll have to get along with what there is.
MR. FRASER: I'll get back to the current contracts that exist between the province and the RCMP and/or the federal government, and the federal government and/or the RCMP and the municipalities. I think we should deal with the year coming up, which is just two or three weeks ahead of us, and I want to deal with the cost per man of the RCMP to the province and to the municipalities.
I can't believe this, and I certainly want this cleared up, but it appears that starting on April 1, 1974, the province will pay in the neighbourhood of about $12,000 to $12,250 — as is estimated within two or three hundred dollars — per man at the new schedule for an RCMP officer stationed in the unorganized part of the province.
As I say, $12,000 or $12,250 is the information I've been given as an estimate. I believe last year that figure was $11,300 a man.
On that basis, if the province is paying $12,250 a man, and I have reason to believe they will be, effective April 1, I have found out that there are municipal contracts, now not signed, delivered to them by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for the same man, except in organized territory at $19,800 a man.
I say, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, what's going on here? How many rates have you got?
Interjection.
MR. FRASER: Well, this is what I'm getting at. The whole setup is haywire. I think you, as the Attorney-General, should dig into this. If you, as the representative for the province, can get an RCMP constable for $12,250 from April 1, why can't the municipalities of this province get them for the same price? If it does cost more from the RCMP for municipal contract, I suggest you've got lots of money, Mr. Chairman, you pick up the difference. But that is not realistic for the same RCMP man to...for the federal government, I'm referring to, and the RCMP...for the same man to charge $7,000 more because he's got a municipal contract and he's not working for the province. There must be something wrong here.
You'll have to give me a real detailed answer to that one, because there's sure lots of figures and accountants involved in that deal. And you shouldn't allow it to continue any longer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just briefly on the figures involved there. We're under federal agreement, you know, and in unorganized territory where it's provincial force, in 1974 the federal government will be paying 51 per cent of the cost per man, which leaves the province paying 49 per cent, which I think does come to $12,250. But when the RCMP under that agreement agree to police a municipality, the formula is different. It goes that for the first five men they pay 50 per cent, and then after that they pay 75 per cent. So I suppose that is where your $19,000 for the man comes in, in the municipality.
Now I can't change that formula. It's a federal offer; it expires in 1976, and will be renegotiated. I could reach down in our estimates here and try and make it up to some of the municipalities which you think are suffering here by that $7,000 per man, but I'm not the Minister of Finance, and I don't think I ever will be, the way things are going. (Laughter.)
MR. FRASER: I understand you have met the Minister of Finance, and maybe you could communicate this to him. Just because the agreement lasts until 1976, I don't accept that as an answer. I think you, as the Attorney-General, can go back there and talk to the wheels in Ottawa and get an amendment to that agreement long before 1976.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon I brought up the matter of conflict of interests. While the Attorney-General did rise in his place after I finished speaking and dealt with the subject very briefly, I don't think he really covered it very fully.
I'd like now to bring up more than just hypothetical situations that I posed this afternoon,
[ Page 1056 ]
and direct the Attorney-General's attention to these particular problems as they affect his department and his departmental responsibilities.
For instance, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, we have been hearing a number of I suppose some people would term them rumours but statements that have come about as a result of the conflict that exists between that firm which is now Canadian Cellulose, operating now as a government corporation, and the other firms which operate in the same general area, financed by private capital. There's concern that Canadian Cellulose received preferential treatment in many respects.
I realize that that fact is not your main responsibility because it comes under the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), but it is a responsibility of your department if preferential treatment results in a completely distorted picture being presented to the public.
We know that in the initial months prior to the takeover of Columbia Cellulose, a trading pattern in shares developed that was quite abnormal when you relate it to the trading pattern of the 12 months previous to that.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It may have been for a lot of companies.
MR. SMITH: This has been brought to the attention of the Attorney-General. As a matter of fact the first time, irrespective of what the press might have said, that it came to the attention of this House was through the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) when he brought up the unusual trading pattern in Columbia Cellulose shares where you can trace back the fact that for many, many months, going back for, say, 18 months prior to the takeover by the provincial government, the trading pattern showed an average sale of shares in the neighbourhood of 30,000 to 35,000 shares per month. Some months a little higher, some months a little lower, but on an average of 30,000 to 35,000. Then, for some unknown reason within the three-month period prior to the announced takeover by this provincial government there was a tremendous increase in the number of shares changing hands. So much so that in one month alone over 1 million shares traded. Over 1 million.
Now that is, in anybody's estimation, a very unusual pattern — a development that is abnormal in any circumstances.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not a million. It was about 150,000.
MR. SMITH: Not from the figures that we have.
I suggest to the Hon. Attorney-General that the pattern was unusual.
Interjection.
MR. SMITH: It was 147,000, pardon me.
But the pattern, as I recall — and I'll accept the Attorney-General's figures — but the pattern seemed to develop along the lines that for a period three months prior to the takeover by the government...
AN HON. MEMBER: 294,000.
MR. SMITH: ...we have, as reported here, at one time 294,000 shares in one month. Pardon me, that was 1 million shares in a three-month period. I stand corrected. As I recall it now, over a million shares in a three-month period. Yet, in the previous 12 months to that period, a share transaction averaging around 30,000 shares per month, which gives you 300,000 to 400,000 in the total year. Certainly that must cause the Attorney-General some uneasy moments, and certainly bears investigation.
But let's assume that an investigation takes place. What are you actually doing? As a Minister of the Crown you are now investigating a corporation which is a creature of the Crown at the present time — the same as if you investigate Dunhill.
As a matter of fact, it is reported in the press yesterday that the Attorney-General is studying the trading in shares of Dunhill Development Limited, but so far has found nothing wrong.
How do you investigate the trading of a corporation which the government owns? Do you have a conversation with yourself when you shave each morning, and determine whether you're on the government's side or the side of the chief law enforcement officer of the province that particular morning? And then you slip around the following morning and you have a conversation with yourself again, and you take the opposite side.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is not the company; it's people buying and selling shares.
MR. SMITH: It's a matter of the Attorney-General standing in front of the mirror and dealing with himself, really.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Member that he might be trespassing on resolution 13.
MR. SMITH: Oh, I'm not trespassing, I'm sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'll bring it to your attention.
MR. SMITH: Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention, Mr. Chairman.
[ Page 1057 ]
The Attorney-General seems to comment to the press on what is taking place. I'm just suggesting that, really, when he says to the press that we're investigating the trading patterns, what he has really said is that he's having a conversation with himself — perhaps not in front of the mirror. The same result comes about when he talks about the trading in Columbia Cellulose, as it was known at that time.
But there are other things that are disturbing in that particular Columbia Cellulose Corporation, which is now know as Canadian Cellulose. And that is this: I've received reports — which I believe to be substantial reports — from the Prince Rupert area indicating that when it comes to a matter of payment of stumpage for the last year of operation, one milling operation paid twice as much stumpage as Columbia Cellulose on one-tenth the volume of cut.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, surely that's the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I don't know about stumpage.
MR. SMITH: I disagree. It is his responsibility to determine what stumpage will be paid by corporations, but it's your responsibility to see if for some reason or another that particular situation resulted in either an adverse effect on a company or a favourable position to a Crown corporation in respect to others operating in the same area.
I think the report is substantial enough that I believe the accuracy of it, and yet there is a....
Interjection.
MR. SMITH: Yes, that would be nice, wouldn't it? I would like to file the report and name names of companies involved.
Here is one of the problems, Mr. Attorney-General. If that is to happen, the people who would be named unfortunately have to deal with a Minister of the Crown when it comes to the issue of cutting rights. They know that their whole future could be prejudiced by any information that they make public and swear in the form of an affidavit. I leave it with the Minister, as the chief law enforcement officer of the Crown, that we have too many reports of this nature.
There's also reports of chips being directed from the central Interior to the coastal operations at a price far below market value. The chips are directed from private companies to a Crown company....
HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): This can't possibly be under the Attorney-General's estimates.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're really debating the Lands, Forests and Water Minister now.
HON. MR. HALL: Point of order. I would like you to indicate to the Member that this is out of order. Obviously if you take that premise that any sector of the community that comes under the general aegis of any Minister breaks the law, you can question the Attorney-General during his estimates on those things. That's an absolutely ridiculous way of trying to conduct his estimates. The sooner this Member's brought to order the better we can do our job.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that point is well taken and I advise the Member to deal with the Attorney-General's estimates. Deal with the other things under the proper estimates of the various Ministers.
MR. SMITH: It seems, Mr. Chairman, that one of your cabinet Ministers is very sensitive to the line of argument that I have used.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a correct point of order.
HON. MR. HALL: Any Member who makes allegations about people breaking the law and doesn't report to the Attorney-General privately is obviously somewhat sensitive himself.
MR. SMITH: What I have said to the Attorney-General this afternoon and am saying now is that substantiated discussions with many people and organizations and companies in the province lead us to believe that a conflict of interest does exist between Crown corporations when they are involved in the same line of business as private companies.
As a result of that, the Attorney-General should very seriously consider the matter of conflict-of-interest legislation so that the public would not be denied the privilege of making information available on a basis where it would not be held against them by any Minister of the Crown or prejudice their position in future dealings with the Crown. I would hope the Minister would certainly take that advice and recommendation into consideration.
I'd like to move on to one other area for just a few moments, and this has to do with the Motor-vehicle Act.
Some time ago, under the Motor-vehicle Act, an amendment was introduced concerning pollution control devices on motor vehicles. It is now known as section 40 under "supplemental provisions."
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's one of them I lost.
MR. SMITH: Pardon me?
[ Page 1058 ]
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I lost the Motor Vehicle Branch to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I think the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere is therefore his responsibility from here in.
MR. SMITH: Would you rather I take this matter up with the other Minister?
MR. CHAIRMAN: In the proper place.
MR. SMITH: Well, I think the Minister is perhaps ducking the issue a little bit, but I'll be prepared to discuss further the matter of pollution control devices on cars and vehicles in this province with the Minister who is responsible for the Motor-vehicle Act at the present time.
Another area that I would like to deal with briefly is the matter of the real estate business in the Province of British Columbia. I don't intend to refer to any investigations or any particular problem that's presently before the courts. But I do wish to say that in recent months, and some months that were not so recent, the Attorney-General for some reason or other continually referred to the real estate business and the operators of real estate businesses in this province in a manner which would suggest that they have skirted the edges of the law frequently, sometimes suggesting that they were rip-off artists by the type of maneuvering going on and the interest rates that they have charged.
I've listened carefully whenever the Hon. Attorney-General has talked about the real estate industry in the Province of British Columbia and I have never yet heard him make one solid accusation that would either name names or implicate companies which he felt were outside of the law in their transactions. It's a type of thing that he's accused the opposition of a number of times — a type of smear by innuendo.
I would say to the Attorney-General that if you have a case against the real estate industry in the Province of British Columbia, and if you have knowledge of people who have broken the law in the industry and agents who have broken the law, then it's your responsibility to bring that into the full disclosure and public light of this particular Legislative Assembly. Don't continue to smear the industry by innuendo and half accusations. There are many, many reliable, conscientious people in the business of selling real estate and acting as agents for firms in the Province of British Columbia — completely reliable people who have a lifetime of experience, background and knowledge in that field, and creditable individuals. For the Attorney-General to smear their business in a blanket manner is not fair, using his office to do that to one particular industry. If that continues, then I think we have every right to ask the Attorney-General what ulterior motive he has in mind.
Perhaps you intend to take over the industry in the Province of British Columbia. Is that what you have in mind? Do you feel that for the benefit of the protection of the public generally the provincial government must now step in and nationalize this particular business?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: We can't nationalize anything.
MR. SMITH: Well, provincialize, if you like. You can certainly do it the other way around, Mr. Attorney-General. You can set rules and regulations which make it impossible for them to live with, and you can phase the business out that way quite easily.
I think you owe it to that industry to bring out into the open what you really have in mind concerning real estate businesses and real estate salesmen in the Province of British Columbia. Are they making rip-off profits? Do they charge excessive interest rates on second and third mortgages? Where do you stand on the business of bonuses? Should they be allowed in law? Or should they be completely terminated in the Province of British Columbia?
I would hope that the Attorney-General sometime in his salary estimates would comment on the matter of the real estate industry and the position that it can occupy in British Columbia in the future in more detail than he certainly has up until this time.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I don't think I've made any blanket accusations. Where we do investigate something it becomes public knowledge. There's a case before the courts right now which I can't discuss, but in which we're carrying out the investigation — we've got an injunction. If there's breaches of law, then we investigate, and if we prosecute it becomes known. At that stage we name names.
In terms of Mortgage bonuses I'm glad to say that the Consumer Protection Act is working very well. We've had the Hon. Mr. Justice Munroe give a judgment under that Act against an unconscionable mortgage transaction, even as against the assignee in the case involved, so that the legislation we amended last year has been upheld. It's been a real relief in the case of that one mortgage transaction.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the previous remarks about action of the Attorney-General's department in initiating action to protect the public, particularly where the government is involved. The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) brought up the question of conflict of interest of the government when it's involved in a dispute and also has the responsibility for instigating
[ Page 1059 ]
an investigation.
I'd like to go back to some of the events of last June — just to pose a question — and the public discussion that surrounded Plateau Mills when there were charges of terror tactics and accusations by people in the private sector that the government used these tactics in opposing them for purchase of the same company. Realizing that it's a dispute the Attorney-General should be interested in, I would be interested in knowing if and when the Attorney-General made investigations into those charges, how he investigated those charges, what sort of force he had, and whether the conclusions are public.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I thought the Hon. Member was going further. You asked me whether I had ordered an investigation into the Plateau Mills situation. The answer is no.
MR. BENNETT: This is the very question we're raising in this House. Where the government is now participating in the private sector and becomes under dispute and where charges of this nature are made, do you not feel an obligation to protect these people and the public interest? Why did you not instigate an investigation?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't institute investigations in the absence of any evidence or unless there is breach of law involved. If the Hon. Member has anything in that situation or any other situation which indicates, with some evidence behind it, that there's been a breach of the law, it will be investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted.
MR. BENNETT: We're talking about a whole new area. This is why the discussion is being brought up in the Attorney-General's estimates. It's a whole new area. Where the government is involved and charges are made relating to another government department, it must be incumbent that the Attorney-General's department take some leadership in instigating these actions.
I go back to all sorts of letters and correspondence that were filed at that time with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). They charged that he used information on their application to purchase to instigate purchase on behalf of the government. Is this operating that department in a fair and responsible manner? There were charges of terror tactics. This discussion went on for weeks. Because the Legislature wasn't in session doesn't mean the department should not be acting on behalf of those people as citizens who are purchasers and also for the rest of the public. Those are the type of investigations we're talking about. There is no point of law that we can point to, but it's a new area of responsibility and activity of this government, and an area the Attorney-General's department should develop a policy on.
MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General some of the developments as far as the administration of justice is concerned in Comox riding, particularly in the northern part of the riding where this subject has been one of major controversy over the last few years.
The issue of justice in the northern part of Vancouver Island became a burning one about three years ago when a Courtenay lawyer, Mr. Vic Stephens, started giving speeches about his feelings about justice in the north end of the Island, and started writing letters to various people in the province expressing his viewpoint. Mr. Stephens created such controversy at the time that finally there was a symposium held up in Port Hardy in order to discuss thoroughly for a couple of days the whole question of justice in the northern part of the Island. Vic Stephens, who is a Courtenay lawyer, travelled to the north end of the Island to practise law up there. He became so upset that he started making quite a few charges which were generally agreed with by many of the other lawyers who were practising in the north end of the Island.
He deplored the courtroom facilities, for instance, in Port Hardy, and referred to court cases being held in the Legion up there or in the RCMP sergeant's office or sometimes in the local airport observation tower. Sometimes in the summertime they would hold court in the upstairs spectator section of the curling rink. He complained bitterly about the quality of the judges in the north end of the Island and felt they certainly were not qualified or trained to handle some of the cases they were handling at the time.
He also talked about lawyers in general who were not interested enough in justice in some of the more rural parts of the province. At one speech he made to the Rotarians in Courtenay, he is quoted in the paper at that time as having said:
" 'Most of the talk at law conferences is done by city lawyers in city situations,' he said. 'By comparison, city problems are small compared to those in rural areas.'
" 'The quality of judges, the lack of training and their approach to the system of justice' were named by Stephens as things going on in small communities which caused him some concern. 'Lawyers are aware of the problems but they're doing nothing to correct it,' he said.
"Stephens expressed hope that 'the new Attorney-General will bring more insight, understanding and feeling into the matter of justice for the Indians.' "
And here he was referring specifically to the situation
[ Page 1060 ]
as it existed at Alert Bay.
" 'The last Attorney-General (Mr. Peterson) was in a rut and did nothing about it, or at least did very little, and what he did do was typical of the established political parties.' "
Mr. Stephens also objected to the general attitude which the RCMP had in the north end of the Island, particularly out at Alert Bay, as compared to the attitudes the RCMP displayed in the Comox Valley. He made reference in his speeches and in his correspondence to incidents he witnessed himself at Alert Bay involving what he called Indian baiting. He complained about the general attitude displayed by the RCMP toward the Indian community at Alert Bay.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Stephens became so bitter that at one point he said that if we cut the police force in half at Alert Bay we'll cut the problems in half as well.
I expect that the reports, which came back to the Attorney-General's office following the symposium held in Port Hardy in the fall of 1972, have been acted upon. They were listened to, were looked at and have been acted upon because the situation has certainly improved in the north end of the Island, and I'm pleased to report that.
The relationship between the RCMP and the Indian population at Alert Bay is vastly improved. The Indian court worker programme has been of great benefit in assisting the Indians to achieve some sort of justice up in places like Alert Bay and Port Hardy. Margaret Cranmer of Alert Bay and Alice Scow over at Port Hardy have done an excellent job in improving the situation there.
Just two weeks ago in the local paper in Campbell River a large headline stated that legal aid offices are being opened in Campbell River to service the north end of the Island. Frank Mazko of the legal aid society indicates that very shortly legal aid will be available in places like Alert Bay where the people from the office in Campbell River will be travelling up on a regular basis.
The last point I would like to make appears in the Port Hardy paper of this week. It shows on the front page pictures of the opening of the new court facility in Port Hardy.
All in all, I am quite satisfied with the progress that has been made as far as correcting the injustices that Vic Stephens referred to three years ago. We have in addition stationed in Port Hardy now a probation officer. All of these are assisting a situation which I felt, along with Mr. Vic Stephens, was a deplorable one. But I still think there's a good deal to be done.
One very small suggestion I would make at this time: that we initiate a Zenith phone number into Campbell River to the legal aid office there. I would request, Mr. Attorney-General that you look at that one minor request. Thank you.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think on that last point, I appreciate what the Hon. Member said. On that last point: when you have a scattered community and one legal aid office which might be 80 miles away, we ought to have a phone service so that the line is freely available to people who need legal aid to call in. We'll look at that.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of points I'd like to make. First, there has been a reference to the Wilkinson Road prison, or institution there. I cannot let this opportunity pass without repeating what I've already said before and reiterating the need to get rid of that institution.
The Attorney-General has talked previously, I'm quoting him from earlier this year when he said: "The person coming out of jail after long, bitter, lonely, alienated years behind bars returns to his community not safer in terms of that community but more dangerous." He pointed out that the whole question of the first-time offender and his treatment, even prior to being convicted, if he is being convicted, can alter the pattern of that person's behaviour for the remainder of his life.
I was perfectly astonished to have this institution.... It is simply a prep school for the penitentiary at the present time. I was just astonished to find that no information really was forthcoming that it is to be destroyed. We apparently have money for such things as buying companies, but apparently the money to construct a new facility, or an improved facility, or a different type of facility, is not there.
Now, it's fine to talk about a programme that'll stretch on into the indefinite future; it's fine to talk about the need to get rid of such things, but surely the Minister should be telling us now when it's going to be torn down, because the institution itself is a disgrace to the government. It's a disgrace to the people of British Columbia. It's a disgrace to all concerned. I think that Wilkinson Road, as I mentioned, is simply a prep school for the penitentiary. It's probably the worst of all facilities in B.C. Certainly far worse than the B.C. Pen. Yet we haven't heard from the Attorney-General as to when it's going to be torn down, as torn down it must be.
The comments of the Attorney-General on this were soothing. He stated that yes, something would be done. But nothing has been done and we think it's about time that he gave some commitment to this Legislature and the people of British Columbia that this institution be destroyed.
There are a number of things that I've been told about it which I can believe, coming from people who are currently incarcerated, and those who have passed through it. There is the statement made that many
[ Page 1061 ]
young offenders are completely unaware of their rights when they get into that institution. No attempt is made to inform them of their rights, of legal aid, or anything of that nature. Indeed the claim was made which I can believe — it was said with complete conviction and sincerity by more than one person — that some young offenders, in particular those who are not perhaps of average intelligence, simply plead guilty because they're told that they won't be going back there and they do — I don't know whether that's the case. But for the Attorney-General to take part in this debate and not give us some indication of when this blot on the province's record in his department will be removed is, I think, quite inadequate on his part. There are other questions I'd like to raise, and I'll be raising them in due course. But I wonder whether the Attorney-General would, at this stage, simply state to us what will be done about Wilkinson Road. When can we expect it to be closed? — as certainly the government took great pride in closing down the Willingdon School for Girls. Certainly if there was massive urgency at that time, and there was such urgent need, if the destruction of the B.C. Pen was so important, surely the destruction of Wilkinson Road is absolutely critical. I wonder if he has any comment.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in the case of Wilkinson Road, with good community acceptance so we can build up the alternative facilities, our target date will be April, 1976. But in the meantime we are reducing the population as much as we can as we build up alternate facilities — so the crowding problem becomes less as we go along.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to thank the Attorney-General for that reply. I don't know whether two years hence is really adequate if it, indeed, be four years since the government took office before the institution is closed.
Interjection.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm glad to hear that if it could be done sooner, then the Attorney-General will do it, because I think it should be done with real dispatch.
I agree with him entirely when he says that the first exposure to institutions such as this can often determine what happens to particularly a young offender.
Interjection.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it may well be, and I have good reason to believe it is, although I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) regarding this as very funny. I don't regard it as funny. I think this is something that has real priority at this time, certainly far greater priority than the purchase of companies such as Dunhill, or other things which are consuming the public funds. This one is important and I fail to see why the Attorney-General could not speed things up a little.
Another suggestion: It strikes me as curious that the rights of prisoners held on remand for the first time are not clearly spelled out.
We are still getting criticism and comments from people who are in jail that they didn't know their rights when they first found themselves in custody. Perhaps it is being done in some institutions, but I wonder if it is possible for the Attorney-General to insist upon a wall poster in every initial holding-cell, where anyone coming off the street, picked up by the police, could see right in front of him what his rights are. He can get the number of legal aid.
You have to remember that there are people who are picked up by the police and who may not be very skilled or knowledgeable about the law and I think that it's important for them to know their legal rights from the beginning. I can think of no better ways of making sure than in the very first cell having documents or posters or something right up there on the wall. It's quite possible to have this type of information provided. Yet, I've asked people who've been through the various systems and I've been told that there is not such information available. I would hope that this also would be looked into.
Another thing I'd like to suggest is to the correctional investigators. We have people in the prison system, both federal and provincial, who feel they have grievances, and they feel they cannot have them satisfied through the procedures set down by the institution and by the Attorney-General's department, or indeed by an appeal to their MLA or, in the federal cases, to their MPs.
I would think it would be important for us to remember what was said in the judicial inquiry into the Kingston Penitentiary, during the disturbances back in April, 1971. Some prisoners were killed during this disturbance and troops were called out to quell it. I would like to read a small quote from the commission's report, the commission which looked into the whole thing. It said:
"The administration of a prison is difficult, complex, and a much misunderstood task. It would not be our wish that a visitors' committee should interfere in that administration as such. We do, however, feel strongly that the presence of a visitors' committee could be instrumental in defusing areas of legitimate grievance, in assisting both the administration and the inmates in rendering the machinery and life of the penitentiary suitable to its broad rehabilitative and custodial purposes."
[ Page 1062 ]
At that time the commission was thinking of a committee to go around and hear complaints, and try, in other words, to give the prisoners who were incarcerated the opportunity to speak to some outside groups. Sort of an ombudsman in that situation.
I would like to suggest that we could do that at the provincial level as well. In my meetings with these people who are behind bars they have indicated to me many times that they don't feel they're getting a fair shake. Now, quite clearly many of them are simply giving a line to their MLA. They feel this is an opportunity to get some grievance, real or imagined, off their chest. But if we had an office set up, a grievance investigator, something which is not part of the regular channels, something in the nature of an ombudsman, it would be....
Interjection.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have that at the present time?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: We have an Inspector of Institutions, a Mr. Lane, on prison service, it's true, but his job is to be an ombudsman in our prison system, and that's just a tentative approach to this kind of thing; but it's something, and it is working at the present time.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was looking through the estimates, looking for the actual people involved, and I saw nothing that could be described as an ombudsman. I appreciate the Attorney-General bringing Mr. Lane's role to my attention.
I would like to know, though, whether or not he is there as an inspector in what I would call the military sense — I know something about military inspectors — or whether he is there as an ombudsman. Is his job to be there, on behalf of the Attorney-General, checking up as to whether institutions come up to the mark or not? If that's the case, I don't think it's quite what I am describing, Mr. Attorney-General. Perhaps you'd like to comment.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, it's true. It's both functions in that he checks the security, the environment, and he also is an ombudsman in the sense that he receives grievances from both staff and inmates. That's not a perfect setup. I know that.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Attorney-General's further comments. I agree it's not a perfect setup, but I would like to suggest that the roles then be separated. The staff have their own system, I would hope, for proper grievance examination — a civil service system. To have the same man consider staff problems as well as inmate problems I think is wrong.
I would like to think that you could have someone responsible to you by way of an annual report — or I should say to this Legislature by way of an annual report — who would be the prisoners' friend, if we can use it that way, in case of a legitimate grievance. Now if Lane's responsibility is for such things as security — whether or not the prison's being run properly — I don't think that it's really the same type of function as I am talking of, Mr. Attorney-General. I think that we could gain a lot by having an independent person out there doing this particular job — hearing problems and grievances — in the hopes of defusing any genuine grievances from turning into major problems.
I say this because it's been requested by a large number of people, and the federal investigator, Mrs. Hanson — Ms. Hanson — is having great success. They, of course, had the previous system, which the province still has, of combined inspection, of working through the system to get prisoners' complaints looked at, and they found it unsatisfactory.
Ms. Hanson, a graduate of UBC law school, has been very successful in this. So I would think that there is real opportunity in the provincial system for something like this, because Mr. Lane doesn't fulfill the functions I would suggest he should, or at least someone else should; and that is somebody independent, someone whose job is that of an ombudsman, someone not connected with staff problems, someone not responsible to you for security or inspection in the traditional sense, someone, in other words, who can look into complaints, decide whether or not they are onerous or genuine because of onerous restrictions, or things of that nature. For example: a case in point is a forest camp.
The complaint came to me that men were being picked up for having torn clothing, which is an offence. They can get into trouble for it. Yet at the same time, there was nothing else available and the clothes were coming back from the laundry torn. They were complaining bitterly that there was no way they could accept the clothing issued by the prison service, the penitentiaries branch, and at the same time satisfy their guards that they were wearing clothing which met the requirements.
Now this is the type of thing; it's major for the people concerned. A person who would act as an ombudsman, I think, could look into this case, discover whether or not there was deliberate harassment, a deliberate attempt to give these people a hard time, and could, I think, do something useful in terms of having the system work more effectively and give prisoners faith in the good will of the government people. So I would certainly suggest that we do need a separate person to fulfill the role that I've outlined.
One other thing is the new remand centre in
[ Page 1063 ]
Vancouver. I think it's important that this not be run by the police, and I would ask the Attorney-General whether it's the intention to have that staffed in terms of.... Are we having it staffed by police when this eventually comes? It's not. Well, I'm glad to hear that because I don't think it should be and I'm glad that the Attorney-General has shaken his head when I....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: The remand is a correctional facility, a lockup. When somebody is first received it would be a police facility.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the remand in Vancouver — I understood that you were having a new centre built. Will that be under police control?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's good. Thank you. In any event, I wonder if the Attorney-General would like to comment upon these suggestions — in particular, that of the prisoners' ombudsman.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I haven't got much more to say. We have established this inspector. The kind of incident that the Hon. Member brought up is something that he should look into and is. We're not saying that we're closed to further suggestions, and I appreciate what he said.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, can I make another suggestion, Mr. Chairman, as the Attorney-General is so receptive? What about the Crown corporations receiving people on parole or taking people who might otherwise have difficulty getting jobs? I would like at this stage to suggest that B.C. Forest Products, a private company, has an outstanding record as indeed do many other companies in this province.
But B.C. Forest has gone out of its way to make sure that people who are in difficulty with the law, who are being released, who are given a chance to get out a little early in the hope that they can establish themselves.... They are trying very hard to hire enough of these people and help them out. I wonder what's being done by the Crown corporations to follow the lead of private industry and, in particular, B.C. Forest Products.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the correctional officers do speak with all companies, including B.C. Hydro, which I think has accepted some responsibility, and should speak to the others. I can't tell you whether there's been co-operation at this stage from the north or Ocean Falls because I don't know the situation. It's kind of difficult because there are union agreements.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just a few more minor questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're up and down here so many times. I wish you'd finish your speech, get your reply, and then we can get on to something else.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: My problem is that there are people getting up on their feet looking for a place to speak, and the same person's getting up three and four times.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The reason I do, Mr. Chairman, is that the Attorney-General's being very co-operative.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'll ask the Attorney-General to wait with his reply until you've finished.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He can reply when he wants, but I would like to congratulate him, as a Member of the Opposition, and I think we're all in agreement: this is the right type of approach of a Minister during estimates. Come up quickly and don't leave us making lengthy speeches about a subject upon which he may know more, in which he might be able to head us into a better direction by a useful intervention.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you have a further question, then pose it.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've got a few further suggestions, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to turn to another subject here, and that is the question of the B.C. Family Relations Act.
I don't know whether it's generally understood. Indeed, until recently I didn't know about this, but it's possible under our present system for parents whose child is under the age of 16 — infant child — who's been lured away to another home or residence which may promise a more permissive life.... It's possible for the person who lures her away, in fact, to come back under section 15 of the B.C. Family Relations Act and get maintenance for that child, because the parents, of course, are responsible for the upkeep of that child.
We're in this incredible situation where, according to the letter I have received, parents are being asked to support, financial support, their child who is a girl under the age of 16, who is living with a man of 19 or 20. They're being asked to support their child
[ Page 1064 ]
financially — and she's living with that other man — even though they have tried to keep the girl at home to give her the type of home life that they would like.
They're trying, if you like, to keep her on the straight and narrow. They have failed, obviously, because this girl is now, as I said, living with a man somewhat older than herself. To add insult to injury, they're being required to pay support for the child. Now this is a letter that has come to me. I've tried to check it out. I wonder whether the Attorney-General would like to comment on his because it seems iniquitous to me, and I'm very sincere about this.
It seems iniquitous to me that a family trying hard to bring her back into the family nest, under the influence of parents, find themselves at an enormous disadvantage, because they're required to support her financially outside. I just don't know whether this is the case.
I can only judge from the letter I have received, but it seems that when you have a child who is uncontrollable by the parent, it seems quite wrong, quite wrong, for the family to be required, if you like, to finance the very type of life that they're objecting to. I may be wrong on this, as I said; I'm judging only be correspondence received about an individual case.
I wonder whether the Attorney-General would indicate to me, after consultation with his Deputy and his other assistants over there, as to whether this is taking place, whether it is possible under the law, and whether or not we're to have amendments to curb this. I think we're the only province in Canada which has this problem. All the others have seen the need for alterations; yet 18 months after the government of sweetness and light has turned up, we still have this situation in existence. I find it very curious indeed.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the child who has run away from home has to be supported only if there is a court order whereby the court finds that the parent has, without reasonable cause, neglected to support that child. So there wouldn't be automatic support for a child in those circumstances. There would only be if the court so finds that the parent is unreasonably withholding support.
MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver-Seymour): I just wanted to make a few brief comments on another matter. The subject I wanted to deal with comes under the landlord and tenant legislation, and I thought this might be the best time to deal with it, Mr. Chairman.
The question of landlord and tenant relationships and the question of rents being charged to tenants is unquestionably the major issue facing me as an MLA in North Vancouver.
Each weekend when I go back to the constituency I am involved in a number of meetings. Last weekend there were three meetings with various groups of tenants in the area, all of them facing a similar problem: a relationship with their landlords that is at best by long distance and by the unfortunate means of notes through the mail slot. In fact, no personal contact.
The lack of personal contact in the landlord-and-tenant relationships and that impersonality leads to an ability on the part of landlords to raise rents beyond any kind of reasonable level that people can afford or people can reasonably be expected to pay. If landlords were required to be in more contact with the people they are in fact renting to, they would see the situation more reasonably and be less inclined to slap on the kind of rent increases they have.
I think the reason we have a civilized relationship by and large between labour and management is that we have a system of collective bargaining to solve the problems which exist between one side and the other. There are grievance procedures; there are bargaining procedures for working conditions and for salaries and for the whole range of activities between the two parties.
In many ways parallels can be drawn between labour-and-management relations and landlord-and-tenant relations. If landlord and tenant were required to sit down together to determine what the rent should be in a particular apartment, then I think both sides would be more inclined to understand the difficulties of the other. The landlord, I think would be more inclined to understand the limitations on personal income the tenant has; the tenant might see the problems the landlord has in terms of his maintenance costs and his taxes and his other costs that, of course, do rise for him.
I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that a system of collective bargaining would be advantageous to the landlord-and-tenant relationship for a number of reasons. I've outlined that the landlords would be inclined to see their apartment blocks not as a source of income alone but as a place where people live. I don't think very many landlords are doing that right now. They see their suite as a place where they can make a bit of money. They treat the suite as a physical bit of property and not as somebody's home. That is an important element in the call many of us are making for some kind of collective bargaining system with landlord and tenant.
The question of rent justification which keeps occurring could very well be settled by that kind of procedure. Rather than justifying to some impartial government appointee or some board that's established one way or another, the justification should have to take place between the two parties. If and when there is a breakdown, there can be a
[ Page 1065 ]
regional rental board of some kind which would act as a referee in these kinds of instances, just as a regional rental board could act as a referee in determining whether or not tenants were justly evicted from their suite.
A major problem currently, of course, is that many tenants are being evicted for a variety of reasons. Some are evicted so that the landlord can put in a tenant who is prepared to pay a lot more money for the suite. Increasingly so, others are being evicted because they are leaders in the block and they are inclined to try and organize tenants' associations and the like. Those people in many instances are being given eviction notices. I don't think that's just, Mr. Chairman, and I think we should set up a system which would eliminate that. A system that enables collective bargaining to take place with a regional rental board as referee could solve many of those problems.
To solve the problems that go beyond regional and local concern, there should be a provincial advisory board that would act in an advisory capacity to the regional rental boards so that there could be a common policy throughout the province.
People talk about the problem in terms of: don't put too many controls on landlords or don't create a new balance between landlord and tenant because then the capital would dry up and there would no longer be money available for further housing developments, particularly for apartment dwellings. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that very little apartment building is going on at the present time, particularly for families, or apartment buildings including two or three bedroom suites. Very little of that is going on.
Some radical solutions are going to have to be looked at. One that I'm particularly interested in, Mr. Chairman, is the idea that all the money paid into accommodation, whether through mortgages or through rent, should be returned back into the housing field. The co-op principle is really at the basis of that.
If people are paying $200, or whatever the figure for their rental accommodation, that money currently is going to pay off mortgages and is also going into other areas. The people who are making the money off buildings are turning around and not re-investing that money in housing; they're re-investing it in other more lucrative areas. I would suggest that the solution must be to ensure that that money returns to the housing field.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the Member that there's a notice on the order paper that covers that subject and you are trespassing.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Go ahead. We're enjoying what you have to say. It's worthwhile stuff.
MR. GABELMANN: I'm glad the Member enjoys it.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We just want equal time, that's all.
MR. GABELMANN: I'm missing some of the by-play, Mr. Chairman.
What I'm trying to say is that we have to take some radical steps in the housing market because the capital is just not there. Whether it's public or private, we don't have the kind of massive capital required for the housing market. Perhaps we should say, in order to develop more housing, that all money paid into accommodation must be returned for future accommodation.
On that basis, I think the co-op housing movement should gain our support. I realize that is primarily in the other Minister's jurisdiction, but in terms of landlord-and-tenant relations the Attorney-General could include in that legislation requirements which in fact would dictate where the capital would be re-invested.
I realize that's not very likely in a capitalist and private-enterprise society, but I don't think that we can treat housing in a private-enterprise manner. I think we must begin to treat it as a public utility and must ensure that the capital is directed in a way that society requires.
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. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.