[ Page 1093 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Transit Services Act (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 1093

Department of Economic Development Act (Bill 71). Hon. Mr. Lauk.

Introduction and first reading — 1093

An Act to Amend the Minimum Wage Act (Bill 76). Mr. Cummings.

Introduction and first reading — 1093

Prejudgment Interest Act (Bill 66). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1093

Oral Questions

Bids for ferry construction greater than budget allocation. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1094

Involvement of Education Minister in appointment of SFU

president. Mr. Wallace — 1094

Reduction in Surrey School District construction budget. Mr. McClelland — 1094

Authority to hire staff under Vancouver South Community Resource Board. Mr. Gibson — 1095

Flood conditions on Fraser and Thompson Rivers. Mr. Curtis — 1095

Negotiations between RNABC and BCHA. Mrs. Jordan — 1095

Examinations of affidavits of Brunsdon et al by A-G's department.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1095

Withholding of funds from Fraser Valley college. Mr. Schroeder — 1096

Policy of preference for B.C. companies. Mr. Bennett — 1096

Meeting with B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines on Bill 31, Mr. Schroeder — 1096

Agreement between Surrey and Lands department re farm purchase.

Mr. McClelland — 1096

Land claims meeting with Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

Mr. Wallace — 1097

Agreement on DREE designation of northern regions.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1097

Impasse between Elevator Constructors Union and companies. Mr. Curtis — 1097

Tenants' meeting on housing crisis. Mr. Gibson — 1097

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

Mr. Bennett — 1098 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1104

Division — 1098 Mr. Bennett — 1104

Mr. Phillips— 1098 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1105

Mr. Gardom— 1100 Mr. Bennett — 1105

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1102 Mr. Morrison — 1106

Mr. Gardom — 1102 Mr. L.A. Williams — 1106

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1102 Mr. Phillips — 1109

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1102 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1109

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1103 Mr. Phillips — 1109

Mr. Bennett — 1103 Mr. Wallace — 1110

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1103 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1111

Mr. Bennett — 1104 Mr. Gibson — 1111

Mr. Morrison — 1104 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1114

Mr. Bennett — 1104 Mr. Phillips — 1114

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1115 Mrs. Jordan — 1121

Mr. Phillips — 1116 Mr. Curtis — 1124

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1116 Division — 1125

Mr. Lewis — 1117 Mr. Curtis — 1125

Mr. Gardom — 1117 Mr. McClelland — 1126

Mr. Kelly — 1120 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1128

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1121 Mr. McClelland — 1129

Motions

Motion 13.

Mr. Phillips — 1129

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1130

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1130

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1130

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1130

Mr. Speaker — 1130

Motion 16.

Withdrawal of Motion 16. Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1131

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1131

Mr. Speaker — 1131

Point of order

Request for Mr. Speaker's report on use of microphone cut-off switch.

Mr. Chabot — 1131

Mr. Speaker — 1132

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have on the floor of the House today the new chairman of the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia. He was formerly a professor of law at Osgoode Hall in Ontario. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Paul Weiler.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Today I am very happy to announce that we have visiting us the B'nai Brith women of Vancouver. With them is Mrs. Iris Krasner, president of the B'nai Brith women, district 4. Mrs. Krasner is from Los Angeles. I would like to also say that Mrs. Esther Giesbrecht of Vancouver has organized this tour, and I would ask the House to welcome the B'nai Brith ladies and our American visitors.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome more students from that great high school of Gladstone, close to beautiful downtown Vancouver, to the Legislature with two teachers, Ms. Kinney, and Mrs. MacIvor.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I have a very special guest in the gallery this afternoon from Carmacks, Yukon Territory: my uncle Louis Liden, who I'd like everybody to welcome.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Alderman Hank Coleman, who is also chairman of the Central Kootenay Regional District. He is with us today with a large contingent from the Central Kootenay Regional District.

Introduction of bills.

TRANSIT SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transit Services Act.

Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Lauk presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled
Department of Economic Development Act.

Bill 71 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MINIMUM WAGE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Cummings, Bill 76, An Act to Amend the Minimum Wage Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member would be seated at this time. We're still on introduction of bills.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Prejudgment Interest Act.

Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: You mean a point of privilege.

MR. PHILLIPS: A point of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there is no such thing.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, a point of privilege.

Standing in the name of the Hon. Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is motion 16 on the order paper. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this motion that is on the order paper — that has been on the order paper for over two weeks now — is in essence an accusation of me being guilty of contempt of the Legislature, which in actuality is an accusation of guilt of contempt of the highest court in the land.

This accusation of guilt has been hanging over my head for some two weeks now, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that the mover of this motion should have it discussed and indeed the committee should be formed or my motion 13, which was put on the order paper prior to motion 16 should indeed be discussed — today is private Members' day. By leaving this motion on the order paper and not acting upon it, this is an accusation of guilt and I certainly feel that

[ Page 1094 ]

the House should move to either condemn me or clear my name.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Today is private Members' day, and if we follow the normal orders of the day I'm sure that there'll be an opportunity to get to those matters under private Members' day. I ask the House to go on with orders of the day as our agenda spells out.

MR. SPEAKER: I can't deal with the question of privilege because there really is not a question of privilege under our rules. (Laughter.) Order, please!

I point out to the Hon. Member that if he does not feel satisfied with the fact that the rules do not make provision for any expedition of his plea, the other alternative he can follow, which I would recommend to the Hon. Member, is that if motions are not called he ask leave of the House to have the rules suspended so the matter may be dealt with. But at this time I suggest to the Hon. Member, in view of the statement by the House Leader, that we proceed with orders of the day.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, as you know, the orders of the day suggest that we now discuss Committee of Supply, and that that takes precedence over all other business in this House unless otherwise ordered.

It would appear to me, when we're discussing a department as important as the Attorney-General's estimates, that what the Premier has suggested is that if we refrain from debating the Minister's estimates and pass them in a very quick manner, then he will be prepared to go on to private Members' business as the next order of business. If that is not correct, then I think the Premier should make abundantly clear to this House whether he intends to discuss estimates and the matter of supply in this House during the total period that will take place between now and 6 p.m., or whether he will move another order of business.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think we have to wait for the orders of the day to be announced before we know under our rules. It's a little early to be complaining about that at this stage, apparently.

Oral questions.

BIDS FOR FERRY CONSTRUCTION
GREATER THAN BUDGET ALLOCATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the lowest bid received by the government from B.C. shipyards for the new ferries are higher than the amount set aside in the budget for these vessels, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether additional funds will be made available or whether, indeed, it is his intention to request bids from foreign yards?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Minister concerned yet.

INVOLVEMENT OF EDUCATION MINISTER
IN APPOINTMENT OF SFU PRESIDENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Education whether or not she has been in any way involved with the Board of Governors of Simon Fraser University regarding the reputed prospect of employing a new president with a financial commitment which might reach $1 million?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, I have not.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker: has the Minister any information to give the House regarding this very disturbing news to the taxpayers of British Columbia that it is a potential settlement?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member must know that the control over appointments to the administration in that sense of the university, under the Universities Act, is not within the competence of this Minister nor within her jurisdiction. Therefore the question would be out of order.

REDUCTION IN SURREY
SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION BUDGET

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Education Minister as well. I'd like to ask her if it's true that her department has cut $20 million from the $26 million five-year construction budget for Surrey School District.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, that is not correct. At the moment the officials in my department are doing as they do with all school boards. They have met, and I believe are still meeting, with the Surrey board. They may have completed their meetings from their end. As a matter of fact, I was talking with my officials this morning about this, and I will be getting the full report from then on what they consider should be approved, as is always done. Then if the school board is not satisfied, they always have a right to appeal to me as Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad you cleared that up because the

[ Page 1095 ]

press reports say that there was $20 million cut out of that $26 million. I'd like to ask as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, whether or not, as a general rule, the Education department is preparing budgets, because of the declining birth rate in many areas, for lower population increases in the next five years. If you are, that doesn't relate to fast-growing areas like Surrey, Langley and Abbotsford.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Naturally we look at our enrolment projections. They are done by our own department officials, the school board involved does their set of projections and then the two of them come together to see if we can come to an agreement on what we consider are the accurate projection figures. I understand that at the moment the source of disagreement is on those enrolment projections. So I will be meeting with the Surrey School Board to discuss this in the future.

AUTHORITY TO HIRE STAFF UNDER
VANCOUVER SOUTH COMMUNITY
RESOURCE BOARD

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources. In view of the report this morning of an apparent misunderstanding between the Vancouver South Community Resource Board and the Minister as to who will have the power to hire staff, would the Minister clarify whether he's retaining this power or whether he's delegating it to the Vancouver South board?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Could I take this as notice? I only saw the report in the paper myself. I'll take it as notice.

FLOOD CONDITIONS ON
FRASER AND THOMPSON RIVERS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: in view of the snow level data presented in the most recent issue of the "Snow Survey Bulletin," does an above-normal flood hazard appear to exist in the upper, middle and lower Fraser River areas and the Thompson basin?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I take that as notice.

NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
RNABC AND BCHA

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'd like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Health.

In view of the current situation between the RNABC and the B.C. Hospitals Association, could the Minister advise us if they are, in fact, negotiating at this time?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are no direct negotiations going on at this time.

EXAMINATION OF AFFIDAVITS OF
BRUNSDON ET AL BY A-G'S DEPARTMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney-General: may I ask him whether he's instructed the law officers of the Crown to examine the affidavits of Messrs. Brunsdon, Unger, McAninch and Stafford to determine whether there's a prima facie case of breach of the orders-of-council established pursuant to the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I haven't been requested by anybody to examine these affidavits with a view to prosecuting somebody on the ground that they made a false statement and made that statement willfully. If the Hon. Member wants to make that complaint to me I wish he would do so and take the responsibility for making it, and I will then have it checked by the officers of the Crown. At the moment I see no reason to, because it relates, as I said, in a rather vague manner to something that happened quite a long time ago.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: may I take it from the Minister's reply that he has not requested the law officers of the Crown to look into the veracity of these affidavits?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the answer was already given and that's rhetorical.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker. I didn't understand him to say that he had not instructed them to do so or that he had instructed them to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe he answered it quite explicitly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, then: may I take as correct the understanding that he did not instruct the law officers of the Crown to examine these affidavits?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry; it's not a question.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's in Hansard.

[ Page 1096 ]

WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS FROM
FRASER VALLEY COLLEGE

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): My question is for the Minister of Education. In light of the policy which has been established in the Fraser Valley regarding capital expenditures for a college, how does the Minister defend the $9 million-plus expenditure for colleges in the Nanaimo area?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't see that there's any problem in relating the two, Mr. Member. Malaspina has embarked on their core campus facility. We said that we would encourage the development of core campuses, and the $9 million was for the basic core campus facility. In answer to your question the other day, I simply stated that if we want to see some post-secondary services in the Fraser Valley as soon as possible, we probably will have to start in temporary buildings.

POLICY OF PREFERENCE
FOR BC COMPANIES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Finance. I've been trying to get an answer before from the Minister of Transport and Communications dealing with purchasing for ICBC.

I would like to know if the government has a policy of preference for British Columbia companies on tender, and what that policy is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the policy is that we do have preference for B.C. firms, and the general rule is up to 5 per cent differential.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in the case where you bring a question to the attention of a Minister where a tender has been let that is less than this percentage and hasn't been acted upon, what recourse does the public have in making sure this...?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that's asking a hypothetical question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I suggest you write the Minister concerned about the specific area that you're concerned about.

MEETING WITH B.C. AND YUKON
CHAMBER OF MINES ON BILL 31

MR. SMITH: My question is to the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hey, Leo!

MR. SMITH: Leo, wake up! The question is: is it correct that the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources will meet with representatives of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines tomorrow to discuss the ramifications of Bill 31?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): A delegation from the Yukon Chamber of Mines is meeting with the cabinet tomorrow.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question: will the Hon. Minister be at that cabinet meeting?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Unless you waylay me and kidnap me or something else I'll be there.

MR. SMITH: One further supplemental question to the Minister: I have no intentions of waylaying the Minister from such an important meeting, but if it's possible to meet with the representatives of the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines tomorrow, why was it not possible for you to be at their meeting on Monday?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that is a proper question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I answered that question last week. I said that it was a breach of the House to discuss the question over there when I should be discussing it here on second reading.

AGREEMENT BETWEEN SURREY AND
LANDS DEPARTMENT RE FARM PURCHASE

MR. McCLELLAND: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: would the Minister comment on whether or not his executive assistant, Mr. Pearson, and the municipality of Surrey have reached an agreement with respect to a certain marina on the Nicomekl River in relation to the purchase of a farm in Surrey? If so, was that agreement broken?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not aware of any agreement per se, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: would the Minister check into it and find out if such an agreement was made? Surrey is now accusing the provincial government of stabbing it in the back with relation to that agreement.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry — would you repeat that again?

MR. McCLELLAND: I wanted to know whether

[ Page 1097 ]

the Minister would check with his department and find out what the facts are, because they're being accused of breaking the agreement.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I have done so, Mr. Speaker, and I am satisfied regarding the matter.

LAND CLAIMS MEETING WITH
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier took as notice a question which is rather important to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs as to whether he received a letter on March 1 and a Telex on March 8 requesting a meeting to discuss land claims.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was referred to the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi's) office and is on the agenda for discussion tomorrow, Mr. Member.

AGREEMENT ON DREE
DESIGNATION OF NORTHERN REGIONS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Premier, Mr. Speaker: may I ask him if an agreement with the federal government has been signed regarding DREE designation of northern regions of the province?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member. We're still negotiating.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier again: may I ask when it will be possible to have this agreement signed? I understand there is no further impediment in negotiations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As soon as we finish our negotiations.

IMPASSE BETWEEN ELEVATOR
CONSTRUCTORS UNION AND COMPANIES

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I've forgotten the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated. (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister of Labour: have the Minister or his department been involved in recent days with respect to the continuing difficulties between the Elevator Constructors Union and elevator companies which are established in British Columbia?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I know of no particular difficulties at this time. I have been kept abreast of the arbitration which has been going on in Ontario. I have had reports from both the elevator industry and the trade union involved on a regular basis. But I know of no particular problem at the moment.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister satisfied that most elevator constructors then are working in the province today? There is certainly work waiting for them. Are most of them employed?

HON. MR. KING: Certainly as far as I know, they are. I would prefer not to anticipate any problems.

TENANTS' MEETING ON HOUSING CRISIS

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker: in view of the lack of an emergency debate on this subject, and in view of a mass rally of tenants this Sunday to hear suggestions and make plans urging government action to improve the general housing situation, can the Minister advise the House if he will be attending that meeting?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, I will not be attending that meeting. I have a previous engagement.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources: I wonder if he could tell the House what steps he has taken since coming to office 18 months ago to promote mining and mining development in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that really is a subject of an essay, or a very large return.

AN HON. MEMBER: A very short one.

MR. SPEAKER: Or a very short one — I don't know. But it certainly doesn't sound like the right one for question period.

MR. CHABOT: I'll ask him a short one then. Would the Minister tell me whether he's the Minister of the promotion of mining for British Columbia or the Minister against mining in British Columbia? All you've got to do is shake your head.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, that was ironical.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)

[ Page 1098 ]

On vote 11: Attorney-General's office, $79,652.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, so that we can proceed to private Members' day and proceed with the motions at hand, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 30

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the House, would you please tell the Speaker that a division took place in committee, and ask for recording in the Journals of the House?

On vote 11.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Today we are discussing the estimates for the administration of the chief law officer, enforcement officer, in the Province of British Columbia. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that if justice in British Columbia is indeed going to be done, and carried out....

AN HON. MEMBER: And appear to be done.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, as the Member says, and appear to be done, on behalf of all of the persons in British Columbia, then I think the place that it should start should be in the highest court in the land, which is this Legislature.

It would appear to me, and regrettably I have to say so, at the present time justice is not being done in this Legislature.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Well, you're still here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful, now. Watch it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Health feels that my being here is an injustice, which he evidently does, and evidently other members of the cabinet feel that, they have the duty and the responsibility to see that, indeed, justice is done.

I am here, Mr. Chairman...

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Some people will do that in the next election.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...to see that justice is done for the taxpayers of British Columbia. That is why, sometime ago, when allegations were made outside of this Legislature....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: On what point?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: When allegations were made outside of this Legislature with regard to certain financial dealings on the part of this government, it was my duty as a Member of this Legislature to bring those facts into this Legislature because it has been pointed out to me many, many times that the Legislature is not aware of what goes on outside the Legislature unless it is discussed within these walls.

As I stated, Mr. Chairman, justice must be done in British Columbia to all the people of British Columbia, and justice must start here in this chamber. I ask that the allegations made outside this chamber be checked into in order that the good name of the government could either be cleared....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that there are two motions on the order paper covering the subject matter which you are now raising, and therefore I would rule any further discussion of this matter out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I stated, I'm discussing justice. Justice not only to Members of this Legislature, but justice to all of the taxpayers and all of the residents of this great Province of British Columbia.

And if justice is not going to be carried out within these four walls....

[ Page 1099 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if he is referring to the allegations contained in the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. Dailly).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you are anticipating my speech. I am talking about justice under the estimates of the Minister of justice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to refer to the subject matter contained in the two motions; but he may proceed if he does not refer to the subject matter contained in those two motions — the motions standing in the name of the Hon. Member for South Peace River and the Hon. Member for Burnaby-North.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we heard a lengthy discussion yesterday afternoon in this chamber by the Attorney-General, or Minister of justice, as you will call him, about persons being convicted of a criminal offence or an act against the Crown, or an act against society. He discussed the conditions under which these people have to be housed while waiting for their trial. Sometimes that period of time is very lengthy.

You know, I feel like one of those people today, waiting to come to trial. And the Attorney-General, outside in the real world, wants to correct this situation.

Mr. Chairman, do you not feel that whether it is out there or in here, when there is an accusation of guilt, that the person has the right to be brought to a speedy trial?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Because as I said, Mr. Chairman, justice must not only be done, but it must appear to be done. This, being the highest court in the land....

AN HON. MEMBER: The voice of the people.

MR. PHILLIPS: The voice of the people, the representatives of the people. This, indeed, is where it all must start.

If this Legislature is indeed to be the judge and the jury and set the rules for all the people of British Columbia, they should set the example. When justice is delayed, justice is denied.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, had I been called into the Premier's office and threatened, as indeed other people in this province have been...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...would that indeed be justice?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) state his point of order?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, yesterday there was frivolity over there on other accounts outside of the Attorney-General's department, and then again today. It seems to me that we should be getting on with the business of the House so that other matters can be discussed. But that Member refuses to discuss the Attorney-General's department. He is discussing other business that should be discussed at other times before this House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. If the Hon. Member is in fact considering the subject matter of the two motions....

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member.... Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for North Peace River be seated until I have made my point? The point of order of the Minister of Health is well taken if, in fact, the Hon. Member for South Peace River is discussing a matter which is covered by motions on the order paper. I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River if he would indicate to the Chair whether he's discussing anything that's contained in the subject matter of these two motions. Yes or no? Would the Hon. Member please reply to the Chair?

MR. SMITH: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair is attempting to rectify another point of order. When I have finished, then I will recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River. The Hon. Member for South Peace River, I've asked you whether what you are discussing is that which is contained in the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Education, or the Member for Burnaby North, containing certain points affecting the Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: When a Member of this Legislature is fighting for the very rights of British justice under the Department of the

[ Page 1100 ]

Attorney-General ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I just want a simple....

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and is called frivolous by the Minister of Health...I think that whole government considers justice as frivolous. I can take no other attitude.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for North Peace River on his point of order.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister of Health is imputing motives that you or no one in this House can impute fairly at this particular time. I respect your line of reasoning that if the Member is referring to certain events, and if the Member is going to refer to motions which are on the order paper, then he could be ruled out of order. But for goodness' sake be fair in this House and allow the Member to make his point as long as he stays in order, according to the rules of this House, without interference from the cabinet benches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have not ruled the Hon. Member for South Peace River out of order, providing that his remarks are directly relevant to the administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General and are not part of the substance of the two contained on the order paper.

MR. PHILLIPS: So as not to abuse the privileges of this House, I certainly accept your comments. What I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman, is not the motions that are on the order paper. What I am talking about is the conflict of interest that indeed is within the government itself — conflict of interest whereby this government becomes the judge, the jury, the accuser and the accused all at once.

In a very self-righteous mood in a recent session this government stated that it would bring in an Act known as the Public Disclosures Act...

AN HON. MEMBER: It will. Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...so that every Member who runs for a public office, regardless of what that public office in British Columbia is, must disclose all of his business.

What the taxpayers of British Columbia want to know, and want to see this government do, Mr. Chairman, is for this government to disclose their actions to the light of day. They want to see if, indeed, there is any conflict of interest within the government itself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let a little sunshine in.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it is the duty and the responsibility of the Minister of justice, or the Attorney-General, to see that this action is carried out — to see that rules and regulations are brought into this government at this session of the Legislature to ensure that some of the dealings that have allegedly gone on in the past do not occur again. It is his responsibility as the chief law officer in this province to bring in those rules and regulations.

Mr. Chairman, how can the taxpayers of this province feel that they are receiving true value and justice for their tax dollars when they don't know what is going on in the financial circles, when there are questions raised as to certain doubts about certain financial dealings? These are questions, Mr. Chairman, that must be answered.

There must be regulations brought into this Legislature to ensure that some of the occurrences of the past will not happen in the future. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Attorney-General to stand in his place in this Legislature today to tell the people of British Columbia what his intentions are in this the biggest question facing British Columbia today.

These questions have to be answered. As one Member said,"We need to let the sunshine in." If the people of British Columbia are going to feel that right is being done by them, then it is the duty of the chief law officer to explain to them what his intentions are in this regard.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I asked the Hon. Attorney-General a number of questions last night. I didn't receive any answers to the questions, so I find that I'm going to have...

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: ...to, with the greatest regret, repeat some of them.

No, I was here, Mr. Member, at all times.

Society, in order to exist, Mr. Chairman, has got to live by the rule of law; we all know that without that there's not any order and not any consistency. We just get chaos, uncertainty and a return to an exercise of primitive strength. But that does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that the laws that are outmoded and that are not of general public acceptance for the peace, order and general weal of society? It does not mean that those laws should not be changed.

They shouldn't be changed, Mr. Chairman, just for the sake of change, but for the sake of publicly desired and publicly needful improvement.

Until that time, Mr. Chairman — and this is the substance of my remarks on this point — until that time, the law that we have should be followed and it should be enforced, and that's the test of any good law. Is it clear, is it concise, is it certain, and is it

[ Page 1101 ]

capable of being enforced? Surely that's got to be the basic framework and the basic philosophy in which we have to live by, because anything less, Mr. Chairman, can only bring uncertainty, contempt of the law, contempt of the judicial process, and contempt of those whose responsibility it is to administer the law.

That, Mr. Chairman, is what has happened with the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act and the regulations issuing there from, and specifically dealing with the Egg Marketing Board. We have seen a contemptuous situation develop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member whether he is proposing legislative change.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm not proposing legislative change. If you just bear with me a moment or two, Mr. Chairman, you'll find out exactly what I am proposing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much. I asked, and I'm going to ask again to the Attorney-General, who is the chief law enforcement officer of the province and the person who has the highest degree of responsibility of any Member of the government and, indeed, of any Member of this Legislative Assembly — to see that the laws of the province are enforced and carried out.

I ask him again: was the $21,000 levy against Mr. Kovachich in accordance with the provisions of the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act and its regulations? Was it? — and if it was not, how not?

If it was in order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Hon. Attorney-General how a politically imposed reduction to $7,500 was authorized. In what manner was that authorized?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: Was that authorized under the law of the Province of British Columbia in which the Hon. Attorney-General has a duty to enforce, or was it not authorized under the existing law of the Province of British Columbia?

If it was not authorized under the law of British Columbia, the Attorney-General has a very, very serious matter on his hands and we have to have some action on it.

I am asking him, Mr. Chairman — and you will appreciate the wisdom of the question I am sure: was that activity entered into ultra vires the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act and its regulations and ultra vires as far as the board?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if he is asking the Attorney-General Hon. Mr. Macdonald) for a legal opinion?

MR. GARDOM: I am asking the Attorney-General if he is enforcing the law of the province. I have a perfect right to do it and I will do it until hell freezes over if I have to. Has the Attorney-General been asked by anyone that the aspect I am talking about be explored? Should it not be explored? I would put that question to him.

Now you will see the basis for these earlier questions, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your concern as to whether or not I am on the point. Is it not a fact, Mr. Attorney-General, that other egg producers in the Province of British Columbia have refused and are now refusing to pay the levies of the egg board until they can receive assurances that this Kovachich activity was an isolated incident and will not be repeated?

How many producers in the Province of B.C. have refused to pay their levies today under the egg board? How many are in arrears? How much is at stake? What steps are being taken against them? Is the law of the province being enforced, Mr. Attorney-General, or is it not? Are these people going to receive preferential treatment? If so, on what basis?

Are they going to get the written assurances from the government, from yourself, Mr. Attorney-General, from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), or from the Hon. Premier? Are they entitled? Do you take the position that they are entitled to assurances?

According to the material that is on oath and filed and is a matter of record in this House, which the Hon. Attorney-General says he has read and studied, according to this affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon's, the Premier informed the board that if other producers got out of line, they were to be stepped on. Has the Attorney-General instructed the Egg Marketing Board to start stepping on the people who are not paying their levies?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if he would indicate to the committee in what way this matter is under the administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General?

MR. GARDOM: Well, yes. I am quite happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. The administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia is to see that the laws of this province are enforced. This is why this Kovachich procedure has become so serious: it was done beyond the rule of law. Government by godfather.

Look at the consequences that have emanated

[ Page 1102 ]

from it. Are these other people not paying? Are they asking for this special kind of consideration? Do they, Mr. Attorney-General, have legal entitlement to such consideration? And, Mr. Attorney-General, are you or are you not administering and enforcing the law of the province insofar as it relates to this specific problem? We've got to have some answers. We expect to receive those answers from you as soon as possible.

There are other topics I would like to discuss but this is one that perhaps the Attorney-General would like to respond to.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I think this is answered expeditiously. The egg board has its own lawyer, or certainly did at this time. The other party had a lawyer. I think there was more than one party. They made a settlement of a contested claim.

MR. GARDOM: A settlement has to be according to law, though, doesn't it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know. Now, if the egg board lawyer is having trouble in enforcing levies or fines in the Fraser Valley, the north, the south, the east, I would presume he would seek a court test — if they chose to go that way. That's the kind of decision that should be left to the board.

Nobody has approached me. The lawyer advising the egg board hasn't approached my department and said, "Give us an opinion." I presume he doesn't need my opinion because I can't say how a court test would go in any particular situation. That's for the courts. They are free to take a court test if they want to have their powers defined and clarified, by all means.

MR. GARDOM: Just a short response to the point made by the Hon. Attorney-General. I think he would agree that any kind of a settlement would have to be according to the law. When you have a body such as an egg board constituted by a statute, it can only settle within the terms of the authority given to it by the statute. I don't know, and I would suggest to you, Mr. Attorney-General, that you are far from clear as to whether or not it would have the statutory right to compromise. I suggest to you that it did not at all.

Now, secondly, I take it from your answer that you have not received any personal information that there are people today in default. Is that correct?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Not being under my department, I don't have records of that kind. But your remarks, I am sure, are enshrined in Hansard; they will be available both to the board and to the lawyer for the board. I am sure they are taking legal advice.

Your suggestion is that they don't have power to settle a contested claim of this kind. Well, I can't answer yes or no on that because that might be something that should be tested in court. I'm sure what you have said will be conveyed to them, and perhaps they have already picked up the gist of what you are saying.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Further to the point raised, Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the lawyers for the board and the lawyers for Kovachich have been in touch with one another. That's not a point in dispute.

HON. MR. COCKE: How about Samsom?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question raised is that four affidavits have been filed in the Legislature and there is a requirement upon the first law office of the Crown, quite independent of his position in the cabinet.

Indeed, until quite recently, the first law officer of the Crown, the Attorney-General, didn't sit in the British cabinet because he was responsible, independently of the cabinet, for enforcing the laws of the land. That is why, as I said, until 1940 I believe it was in Britain, the first law officer of the Crown was not a cabinet minister, was not a man in the same position as other cabinet ministers. This is why, indeed, he still is not in the same position. He does not take direction from his colleagues as to whether laws will be enforced; it is his individual and personal responsibility as the chief law officer of the Crown to enforce the law. It is not something upon which he is subordinate to the Premier of the province, to the Lieutenant-Governor of the province, or to any other person. He holds that commission as first law officer of the Crown and it is up to him to enforce it.

We have situations which have been brought up on the floor of this House, which have been sworn by affidavit and which indicate that the law of the land has been deliberately flouted.

The question I asked earlier in question period which was not answered adequately was whether or not he had taken steps to investigate breaches of the law brought to his attention by affidavits filed in this Legislature. I would like to repeat some of those questions at this stage.

Did he instruct any of the subordinate law officers of the Crown to look into the question of the accuracy or otherwise of these affidavits which would constitute, as I believe was said outside the House by members of the cabinet, libel on the Premier were they false?

I would like to know whether he has instructed any of his officials to look into this matter and whether they have reported back to him?

[ Page 1103 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I thought I answered that already. Libel would be a private matter. If there is a suggestion of a breach....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Criminal libel.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Criminal libel is not really in the cards at all. That's a very special kind of libel. Libel is ordinarily just a private matter between citizens that I wouldn't interfere with.

In terms of the affidavits, I have gone through this many times. Nobody has come to me and said there's a prima facie case that somebody has committed perjury. Nobody has made a complaint and said there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe somebody has committed a crime in this case. If the Hon. Member comes to me with that evidence and that kind of a complaint, of course we will assess it like everything else in the department under the normal administration of justice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My question, however, has not been answered. The question was whether or not he has instructed members of his department to look into this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. On the basis of what I said, the answer is no.

MR. BENNETT: The whole question, starting yesterday and raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) in relationship to this government and the conflict of interest they would have in providing justice, especially when there was a conflict with their own department operating in the private sector, is under question.

I asked him yesterday whether the Attorney-General took any steps to investigate the claims made last year in respect to Plateau Mills. At that time there were serious allegations against the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) for intimidation and deceit. They were contained not only in the newspapers but in a letter to the Premier of the province.

I want to find out on what basis the Attorney-General does initiate action of a probe or an inquiry and on what sort of information. Just the other day we had the Attorney-General start an investigation on the basis of an article in a Vancouver newspaper to do with the real estate business. Presumably an article in a newspaper is more important to investigate than an accusation against a Minister of the Crown or one of his colleagues in the cabinet.

Last year we had this letter to the Premier from the Sinco Holdings, who are dealing with Plateau Mills, in which they charged:

"We believe that the Minister has withheld information in order to compete unfairly with us and has used intimidation of government power to gain control of the company...with an attitude from the Minister which has been deceitful."

Now, those are serious allegations. There was no action, admittedly, by the Attorney-General to instigate a probe. Yet the other day in this Legislature he mentioned that he instigated a probe of the real estate business just from a Vancouver newspaper article.

I would go back to this question, which has always been before this Legislature, and comments made by no less an authority than the Hon. Gordon Dowding in 1956, when he was speaking in connection with investigations:

"Gordon Dowding (CCF-Burnaby), said it seemed strange to him that on the basis of a newspaper article the Vancouver police investigation was launched, but that on the other hand he took no action when he had a body of evidence to investigate."

This was to do with the Sommers case.

I think we have some precedent on how the Attorney-General conducts probes or independent investigations. In the light of the allegations lately about stock companies and about leaks in cabinet to do with the mining royalties — and allegations have been made that those royalties were leaked — I would like to find out if on those important matters the Attorney-General has launched a probe or called for a public inquiry and, if not, why not when he, on the basis of one newspaper article, will launch a probe into the real estate business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that a remedy has been suggested to the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore I feel he should confine his remarks to further administrative matters under the Attorney-General's department.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is mistaken that I launched a probe in the real estate field because of a newspaper article. I didn't say that and I didn't do it. I think you're referring to the Fulbrook investigation in Vancouver. Information came to the superintendent of insurance which indicated there might have been infractions, and he began an investigation. The newspaper publicity came much later than that.

In terms of Plateau, I don't know anything about Plateau, but if the Hon. Member or any Hon. Member has any body of evidence — less than a body of evidence, any complaint — that suggests there's been a breach of corporate, security or criminal law, I wish

[ Page 1104 ]

they'd lay it before me, because it'll be assessed and investigated and everybody will be treated alike in this province, whether they're government, little fellows, MLAs, businessmen or labour leaders.

If you have something, I'll be glad if you make that complaint — send it to my office.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this isn't a court of law. I'm here to make representation when I feel the Attorney-General hasn't done his job. This was a letter sent to the Premier of which I have a copy. Now, presumably you consult with the Premier.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not on this thing. Not on Plateau Mills. Never discuss it.

MR. BENNETT: You mean he doesn't take you into his confidence because the charge happens to be made against a member of the department of government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: I said it didn't have to be a charge. It has to be that a matter of public business is brought up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that a remedy has been suggested to the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore I feel he should confine his remarks to further administrative matters under the Attorney-General's department.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to find out on what basis and how much evidence it takes for the Attorney-General to instigate an investigation in this province into any allegation, not by an MLA but by a private citizen when it deals with the government or a department of government or a Minister of government, and whether it's left to his discretion, and whether that discretion can be open to political influence. That's what I want to find out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Politics will not enter into it, but a complaint of breach of law should be brought to my attention as Attorney-General. If it is a prima facie case that warrants investigation, it'll certainly be investigated.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I find the Attorney-General's reasoning a little bit strange when yesterday he had informed the House that he had taken steps to have Dunhill sales checked out through the VSE. Now, on what grounds does he choose to do that while on the other he refuses?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, one Hon. Member in this House, and also a radio programme, made pretty specific allegations that there'd been government leaks which had led to insider trading in Dunhill and some people had enriched themselves. If that were the case, there'd certainly be breach of law, and I felt, based upon that, that there's a prima facie case to investigate.

This Plateau thing I've never seen before, but if it's sent to me and it makes a case of that kind, of course we'll look at it.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General said he'd launch an investigation of Columbia Cellulose shares. That was brought up in the same allegation. Do you pick and choose?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, Columbia Cellulose is a very large company. In connection with the two companies, I asked the Securities Commission to look at both situations. But in the Columbia Cellulose case, which led to the formation of Can-Cel, I don't remember any names of particular share purchases where somebody said there was a leak. There was no evidence of that kind presented.

It's a very large company and a great deal of trading went on and has gone on with that company for a long time. The government purchase was handled by reputable lawyers. The stock exchange, because of the large trading that takes place both here and in eastern Canada, suspended the sale of the shares in Columbia Cellulose at what I presume to be the traditional, appropriate time. Nothing has been presented to me that would indicate anything is amiss there.

Now, somebody has said it was an unusual pattern of trading, but that alone is not really.... You know, it could be the pulp market, which was undoubtedly increasing at that time. It could be a number of things. There are fluctuations in all share holdings. But nobody has come to me and said with any kind of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that any discussion of the matter of insider trading is out of order under several points. First of all, there's a motion on the order paper in the name of the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) on the whole subject of insider trading. Also Dunhill is before the courts, and there's also another motion on some of the same points. Would the Hon. Leader of the Opposition continue?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General made it most specific — I just want to refer to this briefly and then go on — during that speech that this wasn't a court of law and that if there were charges they should be placed there. But

[ Page 1105 ]

it's the MLAs' obligation and the government's obligation, where an opportunity exists for something wrong, to create an investigation. The suggestion was made outside this House and inside this House that in both cases, and particularly in the former one we were talking about where there was a much larger amount of shares, this pattern for this did exist, the situation existed where this could happen, and you had an obligation if you were going to act on one to act on the other.

It's beyond the authority of an ordinary citizen to collect evidence for the Crown to place before it. In this instance where the situation exists it's the duty of the Attorney-General to order such an investigation. That's what we're talking about.

Mr. Chairman, through the Attorney-General, we were talking about the suspension of trading. That's another matter I want to discuss with the Attorney-General, because he said trading was suspended at the appropriate time. Well, I don't believe it was. I believe that the other day in Newfoundland we had an occasion where the government was dealing with Brinco, and they suspended trading the instant they opened negotiations to purchase the stock — not after they'd reached an understanding, not three months later, not when they'd reached an understanding, not when they were about to make the announcement formal, but when they instigated discussions.

HON. MR. COCKE: How do you know?

MR. BENNETT: That's what they announced in the papers.

HON. MR. COCKE: So did we. What's the matter with you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition if he's discussing the whole subject of insider....

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: It is not!

HON. MR. COCKE: It is so!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address the Chair only?

MR. BENNETT: Which Member? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I was making a point to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I was asking him whether or not he was discussing the whole subject of insider trading. If he is discussing this, I would rule him out of order on the grounds that this is subject matter covered by a motion on the order paper set for future discussion.

MR. BENNETT: I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I was discussing the procedures this government will use in the future and on what formula and what set of rules the Attorney-General will apply for future purchases or adventures into the stock market. I think there is some confusion in this area and I think it should be spelled out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, without a specific case I could say something about that.

MR. BENNETT: I'm talking about companies that may be presently thought about being taken over or some you haven't even thought of yet, because I am sure that's your policy.

I think in light of this new adventure into the stock market that is unusual for governments, you should have a clearly-defined policy which protects the public interest. That is what the whole discussion has been about.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, without trespassing on your ruling in discussing these past cases that are the subject of a resolution, I may say that the question of what's called "timely disclosure" is something being actively debated by security administrators throughout Canada. While we have interim reports, the matter is still under consideration.

You may recall that in general terms — and I think I've said this — we in British Columbia, I think, are leading Canada in our new company and security legislation in terms of insider trading. That came in last year.

But nevertheless, there is the question as to the timing of disclosure during a period of negotiations. It's reported to me that the administrators of the Uniformity of Legislation Act of the provinces who meet to discuss legislation of this kind are unanimous that the simple act of entering into negotiations to purchase shares is not sufficient by itself to justify a cease-trading order. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.

Nevertheless, this is a matter of importance. You can include government and even talk about private business by itself as well. At what point should the stock exchange suspend trading to give forewarning to people that there might be some alteration in the structure of the company? It is something we are actively concerned with. We will be sending our representatives to the further talks on that question, and I'm sure they will be taking place this year.

MR. BENNETT: The point I'm making is that there should be a different rule when governments are

[ Page 1106 ]

involved because they specifically have more power and deal in a different manner than the normal dealings between two companies. Because British Columbia is unique in the amount of activity in taking over companies, having discussions with other provinces isn't going to be of interest to them. They are not in this airy financial arena. You should be developing rules for British Columbia.

Because this is under discussion of financial dealings that have gone on in the past and may be going on now, we need a clear-cut policy from the Attorney-General as to how he will set up rules that apply to the government. It is a different ball game than the suspension of stock of two private companies because we have more people involved in these discussions when government is involved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That point is something that should be considered. Increasingly, governments not only in British Columbia but elsewhere will be taking an equity position. Nevertheless, I am not sure that we should treat government differently from a large corporation in this respect. Suppose M & B were taking over a smaller company; that would be massive power exercised with respect to relatively few shareholdings in that company. The propriety and the timely disclosure in that case really raises the same kind of principles that should be applied if government were involved.

I'm not knocking the point. You've raised a valid point; government intervention should receive special consideration. We've noted that, and it will receive special consideration in these talks.

MR. BENNETT: A further expansion on this. The government, particularly when it is taking over companies in which it controls their licences and their right to cut, has a far different role to play both as the administration of the rules and the person who is taking them over. They have the right and the clout to force them to sell. That is not the voluntary sale between two willing buyers and sellers. You now have the government which can force a sale. It has to have different rules. It has different muscle; it controls their economic future.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It happens that the gentleman, Dennis Sheppard, who will be representing us at the further talks which begin in 10 days is listening to this debate. I'm sure your suggestions will not be lost upon him.

Well, I'm not sure which province these ones will take place in. Montreal. La belle province.

MR. BENNETT: Just one further suggestion then. I think this consultant would probably recommend to the Attorney-General that a full investigation of those deals that have gone on would be a good basis for providing rules for the future, a good way to start and find out the areas that have been missed, the areas that are under discussion and the areas that are of concern to the public so this won't happen again.

If the Attorney-General won't take our advice, perhaps he will take his adviser's advice.

MR. MORRISON: I would also like to remind the Attorney-General that a couple of days ago he advised us that he would tell us when suspension of trading did take place in those two cases. We have not yet had an answer to that.

He says the new companies are treated the same, but I notice that every new provincial company that the Legislature has control of which we incorporate is specifically excluded from the Companies Act. We have this new bill presented to us today, and in it, section 11 (7), page 5, says the Companies Act does not apply to this company. It doesn't apply to Ocean Falls, and it doesn't apply to Can-Cel, and it probably won't apply to the future companies.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But the government owns all the shares....

MR. MORRISON: On the one hand you are telling us that you are responsible and on the other you take the responsibility right out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's irresponsible.

MR. MORRISON: It's irresponsible, very irresponsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. With regard to the first question, I would rule the question out of order because it does deal with matters covered by the motions on the order paper.

MR. MORRISON: He agreed to give me the answer; he said he would answer it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Dunhill: January 10; Col-Cel: March 30. Dunhill in 1974 and the last year for Col-Cel.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'm pleased the Hon. Attorney-General has agreed that this is a matter of very serious importance for him and his department. I'm also pleased that Mr. Sheppard is going to listen very carefully to what is said and take the thoughts from this House to his meeting in Montreal.

But I wonder if the Attorney-General would indicate how long in British Columbia we will need to await the results of these deliberations so that situations such as those mentioned by the Member

[ Page 1107 ]

for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) today can't go unnoticed in the Province of British Columbia.

The Attorney-General yesterday, when dealing with this same subject, said that 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. I think it is very proper of the Attorney-General to take cognizance of this.

When you look at what has developed in the past 18 months, we find that the government is now intimately engaged in the corporate fields of oil and gas, coal, generation and transmission and sale of electric power, railways....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Alfalfa cubes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...alfalfa cubes...

AN HON. MEMBER: Poultry processing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...poultry processing, pulp and paper industry, the lumber industry, insurance industry, transportation systems, communication systems, television and radio broadcasting, newspapers, transit systems.

The impact that decisions of government and actions of individual members of government can have upon our entire society is increasing by leaps and bounds under this government. To suggest that the Associate Deputy Attorney-General (Mr. Sheppard) is going to consider these things at some conference makes me wonder.

I remember in past sessions legislation was brought in. Good ideas. Mr. R.A. Williams, who is now the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, in 1970 brought in an Act regarding conflicts of interest. It is interesting to note the point of view taken by the Minister at that time:

"Whereas the people have a right to expect from their elected and appointed representatives at all levels of government assurances of the utmost in integrity, honesty, and fairness in their public duties;

"And whereas the people further have the right to be assured to the fullest extent possible that the private financial dealings of their governmental representatives and of candidates for their offices present no conflict of interest between the public trust and private gain."

Then he followed with proposals to prevent conflict of interests of that kind.

The Hon. Attorney-General suggested to the Leader of the Opposition: "When you find out the facts, present a case to me. If it breaks the law, we'll take action." But the Attorney-General well knows the difficulty of a private citizen, of a Member of this House, to ferret out the dealings that take place, particularly when we have this vast array of enterprises which the government is involved in.

What did another distinguished Member of the opposition say in 1972? Mr. Macdonald presented An Act to Provide for Public Scrutiny.

"Whereas the Government of British Columbia demands that light should be allowed to shine on the conduct of public business so that it may be executed without favouritism or political bias and in accordance with the highest standards of public morality...." Therefore we were to enact what was called the "Sunshine Law of 1972."

"All boards and commissions deriving powers and duties under this provincial legislation shall be affected.

"All municipal and regional councils, committees and boards, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council when deciding appeals or awards, shall conduct their business at meetings open to the public at all times and shall make their records, correspondence, decisions, and awards open to inspection by interested persons at reasonable times and places."

Proud words, strong words, important words. More important now, when we have this vast array of enterprises in which the government is involved, than ever before.

And yet, Mr. Chairman, what does the Attorney-General leave with us now? Just as he said yesterday when questions were raised as to what the government might do in a very specific case and he said,

If the government were to contrive to depress the price of 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.

I thank the Attorney-General for his assurance that it hasn't taken place. I agree with him that it shouldn't take place. But then the Leader of the Opposition across the floor said "What recourse is there?" The Attorney-General said:

The Legislature primarily, I suppose, which is more than you can say...except that I think it's also an offence under securities legislation....

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.

Mr. Chairman, what an empty promise the Hon. Attorney-General offers to us and to the people of British Columbia. Try it here in the Legislature, under our rules, where the Chairman can close debate if we transgress against some motion that is placed on the order paper, where the House Leader, the Premier of

[ Page 1108 ]

the province, can close debate at any time he wishes, can choose the business which we are to discuss, where the Premier of the province can stand in the House and give his version of a conversation, and, even when it's plain that he lied, no separate, independent tribunal is constructed to determine where the truth might be.

Is this the kind of assurance you offer to us and to the people of British Columbia to resolve the conflicts of interest spoken of by the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in his conflict of interest proposals of 1970? Is this where we are?

When it comes right down to it, Mr. Chairman, when Members of this House take strong positions with respect to issues of this kind and they are reported in the press, are we to be subjected, as members of the press have been subjected, to vile, foul-mouthed, guttersnipe language from the Premier of this province as occurred to a lady member of the press gallery in this building yesterday?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, come on.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Not once, not twice, but three times; verbally assaulted by the Premier with a four-letter word that should never have been used.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is my vote, not the Premier's. The Premier is not here to answer, even if it was his vote.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He hasn't been here since he mouthed the word either.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know, but this is really the kind of accusation that is made, even in the absence of the Member, that kind of brings this House into disrepute.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, this House is in disrepute after the last two weeks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I've made my point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the vote.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Attorney-General has made his point and made it very well. We are left with the rules in this House as the only way of protecting the citizens of the province against the improper actions of government and the members of government. When you do so, you're faced with rules that deny you the right to debate. And when there is fair comment upon what takes place, you get foul, vile, guttersnipe criticism in the corridors of this building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Four-letter words used by the Premier of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please! We are considering the estimates of the....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's disgraceful to do that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Have the Premier come back. Let him say fuddle-duddle on the floor of this House as he did to a lady member in the corridor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At least the Premier has had loyalty to his own colleagues and his own party and to the people who elected him, and you have not, Mr. Member. You've been carrying on secret talks behind the backs of your electors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What a loyalty! Let's talk about integrity for a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What about loyalty? Is that a human quality that is worth anything?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You don't do it as well as the Minister of Highways. Try it again some other time.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Attorney-General that it is not permitted to interrupt the speaker when he is speaking on the floor.

I would ask the Hon. Member to continue and I would ask him not to refer to this matter again, but rather to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General and his actions.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that I shall do to the best of my ability.

I ask the Attorney-General again if all he is

[ Page 1109 ]

promising to us in this Legislature and to the people of British Columbia with respect to conflict of interest is the opportunity to ferret out the details on our own without the opportunity of examining into records of all the companies this government is involved in, without any access to their records, Crown corporations or not, and then present to the Hon. Attorney-General a prima facie case of guilt? Has he no investigative powers? Why don't we have in this province now the kind of legislation the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and the Attorney-General spoke so bravely of when they were in opposition? If we did, we wouldn't have to be asking these questions today.

Plateau Mills is only one of the problems that exists in this province and this government's administration. How do we know what's going on in the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia? What kind of deals are being made?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, you don't know so make some innuendoes, eh?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not going to make any innuendoes at all. When are you going to give us the opportunity for close, careful scrutiny of the conduct of business by those Crown agencies which this government has established? That's what conflict of interest means.

When are we going to stop one Minister from being in the position of interfering with the activities of another? Are you going to bring in legislation, Mr. Attorney-General? Are you going to deal with these things at long last or are we to be left with the same old fruitless search we have been on year after year after year and which occurred when you were in opposition and which encouraged you to bring in the kind of private Member's bill that you did? When are we going to hear from the Attorney-General, the chief law officer of the Crown, to make certain that the government administration in the Province of British Columbia is carried on in accordance with law and the highest standards of integrity and morality?

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly want to support the words of the speaker who just took his seat. It seems to me that every time you get close to bringing some light in, you're attacked like the Member was attacked on the floor of this Legislature by the Attorney-General.

Mr. Attorney-General, you suggested that Members of this Legislature go out, be a private investigator....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I started an investigation on Dunhill based upon very flimsy information which was almost totally false. But I did it anyway.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Attorney-General, the fact that...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's no information there.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...in January of 1973 there were 294,000 shares of Can-Cel traded, does that not provoke you into carrying out an investigation? One only inside-trader certificate filed in three months with over one million shares traded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've ruled that the Hon. Member may not discuss any matter which is covered by motions on the order paper. He may discuss it in general terms but not referring specifically to actions of the past.

MR. BENNETT: Point of order. The Attorney-General has said no information was filed on Columbia Cellulose, so it can't be part of motion 13. Is that right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The motion in the name of the Hon. Member for South Peace River, who is on his feet, states: "...to investigate the possibility that unreported 'insider positions' have been a characteristic of government initiatives related to purchases of shares trading on the open market." No particular action is specified. However, it would appear to apply to all actions of the government of this nature in the past. Therefore I would rule that he may not discuss or refer to any of these matters in the past. Discuss the matter in general terms only.

MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do you mean that any discussion of any possibility with any company anywhere cannot be discussed in this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of the motion on the order paper is to set aside some time in the future to discuss this whole matter. Therefore there is no point in discussing it now if the motion is there for that purpose; otherwise they should take the motion off the order paper.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, my first remarks to you this afternoon were that we were discussing the chief law enforcement officer's estimates. I said that if justice is not performed in this chamber, how is justice going to seem to be done outside of this chamber?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's going to be a long day.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's very easy for any government, as soon as a subject rears its head in this Legislature,

[ Page 1110 ]

to bring in a motion so that the subject matter cannot be discussed. It would appear to me, Mr. Chairman, that that is exactly what has happened in this Legislature over the past two weeks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The motion in question is of the broadest character. Therefore it excludes most discussion of the one standing in the name of the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General says that he wants to see that the rights of British Columbians are protected and that the government's dealings in the marketplace are carried on in a manner that will leave no doubt. Now I ask the Attorney-General: in view of the unusual stock trading pattern in Columbia Cellulose, will he conduct an investigation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd love to reply, but that's the subject of the motion, isn't it? So it's a little difficult.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The request is out of order, inasmuch as it is covered by the motion. Both the question and the answer would be out of order.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I think the Attorney-General has to recognize something which he's either chosen to overlook or is not aware of. I think it is the former. One cannot look upon the government as being any normal business competitor.

I know it is the ideology of this government to buy into and to take over various private corporations, and we're given the line: "Why should not government be able to buy into the private sector?" The answer is very simple. The government has all the power, all the authority — all kinds of authority and power — which no other competitor in the business sector of this province can hope to have. Therefore for government to get in and compete and to start buying out companies or taking over companies or acquiring equity in companies is like being in a ball game where you're one of the competitors but you also happen to be the referee.

If we have situations where the government does, indeed, decide to acquire in part or in whole any company, there are various avenues open to the government because of the power and the authority vested in the government as a very unique participant in the business place. I quoted I think in the House already this session the example of one of the corporations that had to be taken over, or the government had to acquire at least 90 per cent of the shares so that it would not pay federal income tax. Is this not an unfair advantage over other competitors in the marketplace? This being so, is this not a clear example of this unique kind of power which government has as a partner in corporations or as the takeover agent in corporations? It seems to me that the point is being lost entirely.

I've no wish to intrude on legislation before this House, but one could quite realistically say that government has the power and authority through legislation to depress the value of shares, corporations, private companies or industries such as the mining industry.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I haven't got a nickel in the stock market my friend, you'll be very interested to hear, other than my pension plan, I suppose, over which I have no control. I don't play the market.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an aspect of this whole question of honour and integrity that can be lightly discarded. The fact is that government, by the tremendous power — namely its legitimate power to legislate — can in fact depress the value of shares or the value of companies or corporations and then presumably be in the ideological position of saying: "Well, the mining industry is not exploring, or the petroleum industry is not looking for natural gas or oil, or this, or that — we'll have to take it over." So they've got the private sector coming and going. They can criticize them if they don't continue expansion or exploration, but on the other hand they can provide themselves with justification for state ownership by actions which the government itself initiated.

To be more specific, I certainly do agree with the sentiments that have been expressed. I object to government getting into these situations in the first place whereby they participate in private corporations or take them over and then move the goal posts so that they have an unfair advantage. I've tried to make that plain.

AN HON. MEMBER: We differ in ideology.

MR. WALLACE: Yes. Now, supposing I accept that as the legitimate government you at least have every right to pursue that path of buying equity or taking over various corporations, I would agree with the sentiments expressed earlier on many occasions in this House that the government, and the Attorney-General in particular, has a tremendous responsibility to ensure, as far as within his office it can be possible to ensure, that no inside or confidential information available only to the parties concerned in the potential bargaining or in the actual negotiating going on can be used for the illegal and unjust benefit of individuals or groups of individuals. The Minister has said: "Well, at what point in time would it seem right?" He talked about "timely intervention" or "timely disclosure."

[ Page 1111 ]

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I would suggest just as a simple layman in this matter that the time that something has happened to stop trading is the point of decision at which the government decides to move. On the very first day that this government or any government decides to even enter into discussion with Dunhill or any other corporation, in my view, the simple answer to the dilemma is that the trading of the shares should be suspended at that very initial point, not only to avoid insider trading but to protect you, Mr. Attorney-General. If the trading had been suspended the first day the move was made, you wouldn't be in the mess you're in right now. You wouldn't be accused of these things, rightly or wrongly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Member, we're not in a mess.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I withdrew the unkind expression that you're in a mess. Let me say that you would not be subjected to the accusations, and perhaps we would be saving a lot of time in this House.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, maybe you're right, Mr. Interjector from Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings). We would always find something to discuss because that's the function of opposition, in case you haven't discovered it yet. You're sitting there in the House just interjecting and making lots of comments, but the fact is that the function of the opposition is to point out to the people of British Columbia some of the dangers of big government that's trying to take over the private sector in this province. We have a very important function here, and if there wasn't this element of that function, there would be others – of course there would.

Mr. Attorney-General, I say that even from your own point of view of self-interest as an Attorney-General, and in the interest of your own party, it would be wise to have this kind of protection for yourself, never mind for the people of British Columbia.

The fact is that as soon as government makes one move to enter into negotiations for the possible acquisition of equity in a company, I suggest that surely it is quite obvious that that is the point at which trading should be suspended.

There are other aspects to this which the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) introduced in the form of a private bill — the whole question of disclosure, which I think goes a little beyond the point we're now debating. I listened to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), quoting the strong and fine principles which were espoused by the NDP when they were in opposition, and I fully support them.

I hope that perhaps the Attorney-General can tell us this afternoon that that very legislation will be introduced later this session. He introduced a bill last year, and let it die on the order paper, dealing with disclosures. I hope that in the meantime sufficient information and modification has occurred that we can look forward to that bill this session.

Both the Minister and his Deputy are nodding furiously. I hope I can take that as affirmation of the fact that we will get that bill.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do feel that while many of the decisions you have to make are certainly clearly outlined for you in the standing orders, it does seem to me that if we are all honourable men as we claim to be in this House.... The Member for Victoria says, "Don't be ridiculous." But we must at least strive after this kind of honourable respect. If this is the case, I do agree entirely with the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that as a result of concern over inside trading, an action which that Member chose to take, and because of reaction which the government chose to take, I just want to make my opinion very clear on the record — that I think that particular issue should be debated at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I agree with the statement of the duties of my office that was expounded by the Hon. Member. In terms of disclosure, his suggestions will be carefully considered, that it should be at the earliest moment of negotiations. But I would point out that some people disagree with that, because they say they may be tentative, the negotiations may be, broken off and you're freezing-in people's money that you don't have a right to freeze at that point.

But we're listening to those suggestions and we'll take them seriously.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, speaking to the Attorney-General's estimates I have several general points to make — all of them briefly.

I'd ask the Attorney-General first of all if he could enlighten the House a bit more, in view of his brief statements yesterday and the large headlines this morning, as to the extent of organized crime in British Columbia. I think perhaps some alarm was caused, which may or may not be justified. But the large headlines perhaps gave cause for alarm to the ordinary public.

Perhaps the Attorney-General later on in this debate might indicate, when he mentioned that in his view the big crime perpetrators are generally getting

[ Page 1112 ]

away with this, whether he believes that this is happening to any considerable extent, or whether his concern is more preventive at this stage of the game.

There was a considerable discussion as well on the topic of a centralized police force. The Attorney-General indicated, and I was delighted to see it, that he didn't approve of that kind of a mechanism. There is just one specific reassurance I would like to have from him, and that is that the structure of local police commissions will be maintained in those areas where those police commissions exist.

To move on to another topic, we had an excellent talk from one of the Members from the other side of the House about the need for a systematic study on how the legislation of this province discriminates against women in certain areas — not only the legislation, of course, but the regulations promulgated under that legislation.

There is a need for a systematic inquiry, I think, because to wait until a case is bad enough to come to the attention of the Legislature or the press or the public in some other way, is not good enough. There's a need, I believe, to comb through all of the statute and regulatory law of British Columbia to see where there are written or implied instances of discrimination against women in that law.

Voluntary groups have gone into this subject at length; they've done a good job. But they admittedly can't do the whole job. So I would suggest to the Attorney-General and ask him to comment on this: the need for a task force in his department to go through the legislation and the statutes of British Columbia in this regard.

There was another excellent point made yesterday, I forget by which Hon. Member, to the effect that the federal Indian Act notes that laws of general application of any province, which of course would include British Columbia and which would include expenditure programmes, should extend to the benefit of the Indians of British Columbia. In many cases this does not happen; this particularly doesn't happen with expenditure programmes.

Mention was made of the homeowner grant — water and sewage, the Second Member for Point-Grey (Mr. Gardom) says — and many others. It's important that these programmes be extended, and I would add my voice to that plea.

Now if my understanding is correct, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is in this House and in this government as the guardian of justice — not just of legal justice, but what I would call natural justice. I think much of the debate we've had here has flowed from that concept. Certainly the remarks yesterday of the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) on the question of Indian lands and Indian claims and the cut-off lands, and the role of the Attorney-General as the defender of natural justice in that area, apply here.

I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman, but I want, on this question of cut-off lands, to draw to the attention of the Attorney-General one of the gravest breaches of natural justice that has occurred in the history of our province relating to the cut-off lands.

The Attorney-General will recall the so-called McKenna-McBride commission of 1912 set up by agreement. And he might or might not be aware of a particular section of the agreement noting that:

"a commission shall be appointed, two commissioners by the dominion and by the province; the four so named shall select a fifth; and the commission so appointed shall have the power to adjust the acreage of Indian reserves in British Columbia in the following manner: 2 (a) At such places as the commissioner is satisfied that more land is included in any particular reserve as now defined than is reasonably required for the use of the Indians of that tribe or locality, the reserve shall, with the consent of the Indians" — that's the operative phrase — "with the consent of the Indians as required by the Indian Act, be reduced to such acreage as the commissioners think reason ably sufficient for the purposes of such Indians."

Now, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Attorney-General, you know how the history of this matter developed. Hearings were held with the various Indian bands in good faith, with that assurance to the Indian bands in each case and, in particular, Capilano Reserve No. 5, 132 acres — without the consent of the Indians. This was reciprocal legislation — dominion and provincial reciprocal legislation.

The Attorney-General's nodding his head. I'm sure he's very familiar with the general topic.

I want to bring to his attention this specific case in the Capilano riding of those the realities of drug addiction, and while that paints a fantastic picture of maintenance executive council to press for a speedy resolution of this breach of trust which has gone on now for over 50 years. As I think most Members in this House well know, one of the most serious difficulties standing in the way of the self-fulfilment of the Indian people is the sense of grievance and the sense of betrayal that lingers over the years in part as a result of examples of this kind.

The Attorney-General as well, both by virtue of his office and by virtue of self-appointment, has become the guardian of the Skagit Valley. I was not in this House at the time but it was with a glad heart that I heard the news a year or so ago that the Attorney-General felt so confident that he could tell us he would resign if the Skagit Valley was ever flooded. I pray that he will never have cause to resign for that reason. I'm sure he won't.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is it in Hansard?

[ Page 1113 ]

MR. GIBSON: I don't know if it's in Hansard or not, Mr. Attorney-General. It's a statement that you made, is it not?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Have you got it in an affidavit?

MR. GIBSON: Well, we can seek affidavits, Mr. Attorney-General, but I just took it for granted that you accepted the authorship of that remark.

Now there is a legal question surrounding the Skagit Valley. There have been mutterings of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) that he considers the agreement that British Columbia has with Seattle City Light to be invalid. I wonder if I could ask the Attorney-General not for legal opinion — which one shouldn't ask in this House — but to confirm to us what is the applicable law.

I have been seeking this myself. Surely a part of the applicable law I presume is the IJC order of January 27, 1942. I assume that a part of the applicable law is an Act passed by this House and consented to on April 3, 1947, entitled An Act to Authorize the Flooding of Certain Lands in the Skagit Valley. Then pursuant to that an agreement was authorized in an order-in-council in January of 1967 between the province and the City of Seattle providing for the flooding of exactly that Skagit Valley, 6,350 acres, of which 5,710 acres, more or less, were vested in the Crown in right of the province at that time.

All of that seems to be valid law relating to the flooding of the Skagit Valley. Then there is one more piece of regulatory law, being an order-in-council of this government dated December 6, 1973, which sets aside certain portions — overlapping portions, I believe — of the Skagit Valley lands as a public recreation area. Now I have a little difficulty understanding how a public recreation area can be the same land that is described in the agreement with Seattle City Light.

The agreement provided in part, for example, that: "the province, subject to the rights and holders of any private tenure, does hereby permit and allow the city to flood for a period of 99 years from the date of this agreement those vacant and unalienated portions of the Skagit River watershed in British Columbia within or without the boundaries of lot 1103, Yale division of Yale district, up to elevation 1,725 feet."

It is perhaps the understanding of the government or the Attorney-General that these lands are no longer unalienated once an order-in-council has been passed about them concerning a recreational reserve. I'm not certain.

Later on the same agreement suggests that if any portion of the road to be relocated is required to be built over Crown land, the province will, at no cost to the city, make such lands available as may be necessary for the right-of-way.

It would seem once again that the requirement to make lands available for these hydro-electric construction purposes doesn't exactly jibe with the recreational area. I am asking the Attorney General if the agreement, the legislation I have read out, is in fact the applicable law, and if he would enlighten us any further on what quite frankly is a very mysterious situation surrounding Skagit.

We hope the government has in the back of its mind some kind of a strategy here. Its strategy, from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), doesn't appear to be cooperating with the federal government in making submissions to the Federal Power Commission, so it must be a legal strategy. Later on perhaps the Attorney-General might be kind enough to comment, and advise the House and the many people in British Columbia who are concerned about the flooding of the Skagit Valley.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the registry of land in British Columbia is administered by the Attorney-General. The registration of land is absolutely crucial to the regulation foreign ownership of British Columbia land. I'm not going to talk regulation of foreign ownership of British Columbia land. I'm not going to talk have other Members. There are private Members' bills on the order paper.

I want to talk about the administration of the land-registry system and to ask the Attorney-General if the existing system....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, it's a very brief question, Mr. Attorney-General, and that's the question as to whether the existing system, without substantial amendment, could handle the single additional question of the beneficial nationality ownership of the land. Is the question clear?

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. MacDonald) is responsible to this House for the Liquor Board which, of course, is yielding enormous profits for the Province of British Columbia — in excess of $100 million this year. I don't begrudge those profits, Mr. Chairman; I think it is a good thing. I think the price of liquor should be high, because alcohol is unquestionably the most serious drug-abuse problem in our society.

We had a very moving speech last night by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) concerning a tragedy caused in his riding by alcohol to a family in his riding, who had written him a letter. It was an excellent case example of the penalties that the citizens of this province pay in return for alcohol abuse and, as a sidelight, of the profits that the provincial Treasury gains from alcohol.

I am making a plea here for a greater proportion of

[ Page 1114 ]

the alcohol profits to be spent on alcohol abuse education everywhere in the province — through the public media and particularly in our schools. I think that this is tremendously important. It would be helpful if the Attorney-General could give us an account of how much money is spent right now and how much effort is spent right now on alcohol abuse education. I appreciate that this may to some extent come up in the estimates of other Ministers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Human Resources.

MR. GIBSON: Is it in one single department? Oh, it's in the Department of Human Resources. I have looked through the Human Resources estimates and have been unable to find that number. Perhaps the Attorney-General might have an idea of what the figure might be, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is responsible for the Landlord and Tenant Act. Once again, I won't suggest amendments. I presume that we will receive amendments to this Act introduced in the House later on this session. I presume that under the estimates of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) there will be an opportunity of discussing the underlying situation.

I do ask the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with the administration of the Act and the way it is governing relationships between tenants and landlords at the present time. I don't think he can be — not with rents skyrocketing and with tenants subject to intimidation by landlords. As the Attorney-General knows there have been threats of eviction for joining tenant organizations, which is wrong. There have been threats of eviction just for simple complaints of improper accommodation. There are the kicks and the bangs on the door in the middle of the night to try and get the tenant out. He particularly can't be satisfied with it with the supply of housing drying up. Vacancy rates are down to 0.3 per cent.

I would suggest to the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it is indeed urgent that these amendments be brought in. Reform is needed. We need a rental review board, a rental grievance board, something which will make the increase in rents at least commensurate with the increase in costs, and smooth out the terrible acceleration in rentals that has been going on lately, while at the same time providing for the increase in rental accommodation supply. That in the long run is the best guarantee of the rights of the tenants and of good landlord-tenant relationships.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think I should reply to the points that were well made by the Hon. Member. Big crime: I don't want to name names, because I don't think it's in the public interest to give further details in that respect.

Local police commissions: yes, they should be retained and local input should be increased rather than diminished, because in RCMP areas there is no local input at the present time.

Skagit River: it is our position that there is no legal agreement between the Province of British Columbia and Seattle City Light because the same was never ratified under the Boundary Waters Treaty Act, by the IJC.

The final point — LRO system: can we provide for the recording of the nationality of beneficial owners of land? In a physical sense we can. But you need a computer to interpret it and lift out all that information. But the application forms could make that a requirement. Now mind you, when you run into a company holding land what is its nationality? So there are difficulties. But physically the system can accommodate the reception of that information.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of items I'd like to discuss with the Attorney-General today, through you. One of them I discussed at some length last fall, and again last spring. I refer to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police road patrol division. I've had discussions with members of that great police force about this. The Attorney-General knows that my feelings are that the RCMP should not be used, these well-trained men in criminal investigation and all of the training that they've had should not be used out there on our highways.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Member, there's a reason for it.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's a reason for it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I've been told there's a reason for it and I'm also aware, Mr. Attorney-General, through you Mr. Chairman, of the number of deaths on our highways.

But my argument is, Mr. Chairman, the number of deaths on our highways are not diminishing. Therefore the system we have now is not effective. And I'll tell you Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, I don't know if the Attorney-General has ever been picked up for speeding or not....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Have you got an affidavit?

MR. PHILLIPS: But I want to tell you that an ordinary citizen of this country who may never have broken any law whatsoever, when he sees those flashing lights and sirens behind him that he feels like a common criminal. But that's not my

[ Page 1115 ]

complaint....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He may be a common criminal.

MR. PHILLIPS: He may be a common criminal? I feel Mr. Chairman, that we could attain better results by having more road patrol cars on the highway, marked as such, to control traffic. But let's get away from this hide-and-seek business and ghost cars, and patrol cars hiding behind hedge fences — bill-boards, that's right — seeking you out like a common criminal using radar. Let all of that knowledge and all of that technology go to catch the criminals, not the ordinary peace-loving citizens who are breaking the common law speeding on our highways. And I realize....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't send me your tickets. I have trouble enough with my own.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to specifically refer, Mr. Chairman, to the State of Arizona in which by the research I am able to do is there is very little speeding. There are very little accidents on the roads in Arizona. But you can hardly move in that state without seeing a road patrol car. But they don't sit and hide behind bill-boards, they are there driving on the highway controlling the traffic, their presence on the highway controls the traffic.

Mr. Attorney-General, as I said before, the present system is not working. The deaths on our highways are not diminishing, they are increasing — and something should be done. So if this hide-and-seek, cops-and-robbers game that we're playing with the motorists on the highway today is not effective, I think, Mr. Attorney-General, that you should consider again — as I asked for last year — a separate road patrol division. Call it the B.C. Police, the B.C. road patrol. You don't have to have the criminal knowledge to go out there on the highway to control the speed of the traffic.

The second item I would like to discuss with the Attorney-General here this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is a few years ago the British Columbia government did away with the system of fines. They did away with the system of fines for infractions under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Now, in British Columbia that system is being reintroduced again. The system of fining motorists for infractions under the Motor Vehicle Act is being reintroduced. Not by the Attorney-General, not by any other legislative measure, but by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. And indeed, that is exactly what they are doing.

We did away with it, so that nobody paid fines, it was on a point system. So now the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is indeed bringing the fine system back to life in British Columbia. And that's exactly what it is.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Private companies do that too. This isn't my department, you know.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well you are the Attorney-General. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know by what right, what law, without the matter being debated here in the Legislature the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has to impose fines, when we did away with that system?

They're bringing it in probably not until this Legislature prorogues. They're bringing it in under the guise of driver insurance. But what it is, is a fine for infractions under the Motor Vehicle Act brought in by a government-owned corporation.

Corporations have as much power as this Legislature. The Attorney-General says it's not his department. When do we discuss things like that?

Mr. Attorney-General, I have one last short item that I would like to discuss with you. I would like to ask you if you feel it is right that a farmer who happens to be transporting some fruit in or out of the Okanagan Valley — and I am sure the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) will agree with me — is it right that a justice of the peace can swear out an affidavit and that man can be searched like a common criminal? The illicit drug trade in this province runs rampant. You'd be far safer to have 5 lb. of heroin in your back pocket, or in the back seat of your car and drive around the Province of British Columbia. Because for anybody to get a search warrant to search you they have to really have some evidence. And nobody's going to get in the trunk of my car if I have 5 lb. of heroin there unless they really have some evidence.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if I happen to have some apple peelings on my dash and maybe a little sawdust or some wood chips around the bumper of my trunk, lo and behold I shall be searched!

Does the Attorney-General feel that this is justice? Are we putting apples and oranges in the same common denominator with pot and heroin? Let's get to the core of the apple problem. This is a very serious matter, Mr. Chairman, a very serious matter.

I could take my panel truck and I could go to the liquor store and I could fill it right full of booze, and I could drive to the Peace River country and lo and behold no one would search me, no one would bother me! But I tell you if I load my truck up with apples, peaches, cherries, I'm a common criminal. Now I'd like the Attorney-General to discuss these three items that I've brought before the floor of this Legislature this afternoon.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to filibuster my own estimates, but briefly I want to say

[ Page 1116 ]

that in the case of the RCMP patrols it is useful that the RCMP do some traffic work, because that way they get out into the communities to find out what's going on. They regard it as a kind of essential adjunct to their other police duties.

MR. PHILLIPS: How do you regard it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I agree. I think that is a good argument. You know, sitting in the office and waiting for a phone call, or just engaged in crime detection, you don't get to know your community that well. It's kind of an onerous thing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you agree with those ghost cars?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member mentioned Arizona. In Arizona they have hidden cameras on major speedways which show a photo of a car speeding, and which automatically ticket a person. So I don't think you should refer to Arizona as a lucky place to drive.

I don't think we want to have a B.C. highway patrol as an extra police force, because I'm afraid somebody would get up and say "Himmler!" We've had one or two under the Department of Highways in the past, but the government does not plan any change in terms of creating such a force.

In the case of fines, I'll be glad to convey your remarks to the Hon. Minister concerned.

In the case of fruit from the Okanagan Valley, that is a matter again of whatever powers the Legislature grants under the marketing board legislation, as it now sits or as it may be changed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour the fruit point, but if you put yourself, or I put myself, or the Attorney-General puts himself in the position of a fruit grower in the Okanagan, and reads the papers about what you alluded to yesterday afternoon, the major crime in the Province of British Columbia — these are law-abiding citizens. How do they feel? They must feel the same as I do, that if we can devote this much attention to them, surely to goodness more attention should be devoted to the question of real criminals in this province.

I certainly agree with the Attorney-General, and I said last year you should have an all-out war. The illicit drug traffic in this province is the biggest problem that this province faces today. You should treat it, not in an ordinary manner, Mr. Attorney-General, but as a crisis.

I mentioned in this House last year many families in northern British Columbia who were afraid to send their children to colleges and institutes of higher learning in the lower mainland. Unfortunately now Mr. Chairman, they are faced with this problem their own small home towns in the north country.

The drug trafficking problem has reached epidemic proportions in this province. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Attorney-General to outline to me what specific action he has taken since he became the Attorney-General of this province, and what specific positive steps he intends to take immediately, because I tell you that if we continue allowing this plague to grow, it will be the ruination of the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I also pointed out last year that we have a specific problem in British Columbia because of the many, many miles of unguarded coastline that we have. I'm not going to go into the speech that I made in this Legislature last year, but I feel very strongly that those who are out there pushing drugs, who are not users, should be dealt with most severely, and those who are users should be isolated from society until such time as they are cured.

We talk about break-ins, and we talk, indeed, as the lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mrs. Brown) did last night, about rape, and we hear of all kinds of crime in British Columbia. But what is the source of the majority? What starts this crime? Why the break-ins, why the robberies, why the muggings, why the rapes? Do away with that evil of drugs and you will solve a large portion of the other crimes in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I plead with the Attorney-General to treat this not as an ordinary situation. We must declare war. I realize how the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) feels. He's gone soft on drugs. The Minister of Human Resources' attitude is soft on drugs.

But Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Attorney-General to stand on his own two feet, live by his own convictions, and get on with the job that has to be done. All the resources of your department should be focused on this plague now, forthwith. I ask you to tell me what action you are going to take, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, without delaying the committee, everything we're doing really relates to this because about, let's say, half our crime problem is drug-related. Half our inmate population in prison is drug-related, and so forth. Probably when I say half I'm being conservative.

So everything we do in terms of reform of the family court, the juvenile end, improving the quality of justice, improving the speed with which trials can be brought on, including upgrading the quality of the bench in British Columbia, improving the laws, reorganizing and coordinating police activity, integrating police activity with the justice system and corrections — everything we're doing is really related to this, because this is half our problem.

I I'm not happy with the progress that is being made

[ Page 1117 ]

because it is very serious. I have the seizure figures for 1973 in terms of drugs in B.C. here and I'll be glad to show them to the Hon. Member if he likes.

Much more has to be done and really it is the total effort of the department, because, as I say, it is so much of the problem and everything we do is affected by it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to ask one further question of the Attorney-General, if I may. How many men in British Columbia today, in your police force, are devoted specifically towards the drug problem? How many?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You would have to put that on the order paper or ask me separately. I just don't know the number. You've got the federal RCMP force, the drug detail.... I don't know their numbers. Vancouver City Police have their own drug detail which works with them. I don't think we could bounce an estimate at this time, but if you want us to look that up for you, I'd be glad to try and find it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like that answer and also as it refers to what percentage.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll get rough figures on that.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I hate to disagree with the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in regard to the RCMP patrolling the highways, but it's quite apparent he doesn't live along the Trans-Canada Highway to see the type of thing that happens with passing travellers.

I can give an instance of what happened in the Member for Columbia River's (Mr. Chabot) riding last summer where an RCMP constable was riding in his car and met a car going in the opposite direction. As he met the car he saw the man put his hand up to his face, and he automatically thought: "There's something wrong with that fellow; he doesn't want me to see what he looks like." So he turned around and chased him, and it turned out that he was an escaped convict from the penitentiary, and a very dangerous escaped convict.

Also many times when the police stop and check cars, they come up with stolen goods, they come up with drug seizures, and I think if the Member lived along the Trans-Canada Highway he'd have a completely different view of the RCMP's role in traffic control.

In my riding they do a very good job. They are very effective. They are not bullies. In my view they are very, very fair and courteous.

If you get caught in a radar trap, that's too bad. That's there for your own protection. That's put there. for the protection of other people on the highway. As for speeding, I speed myself sometimes, but if I get caught I'd better be prepared to pay.

In regard to ICBC, he mentioned that the Crown corporation has the gall to fine somebody. Well, he'd better stop and take a look at the private insurance companies. They picked out one segment of our society — the young people — and fined them sometimes $300 or $400. So I think he'd better do a little research before he stands up in this House and starts to speak about the RCMP and about ICBC and what's going on.

MR. GARDOM: To carry on with the general topic, which is talking about driving and abuses of the law, without any question of a doubt the most serious driving offence that we have in the Province of British Columbia — it's not unique to our province, of course — is drinking-driving.

You know, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, this annual report of the Liquor Control Board is really nothing more than a diary of disease and destruction and disaster.

We see Mr. Chairman, the $293 million of gross sales — it gives us that figure. It also says there's $97 million of profit, and that's not a true figure at all, because it doesn't take into account the 5 per cent tax. The 5 per cent tax comes in at $14.6 million alone. So the government's total haul here from alcohol in the Province of British Columbia is $111 million for the period ending March 31, 1973. So it's little wonder that the Liquor Control Board has the reputation of being the biggest speak-easy in B.C.

Unfortunately, the moral conscience of this government really has not been effectively tweaked, and we still find the same pitiful situation, dealing with alcoholic rehabilitation. There's no detoxification centres, no effective rehabilitative measures and no real programmes outlining the problems of alcoholic abuse and no policies or programmes of prevention. We know that we have this commission, but so far it is just another commission without any effective results.

Let's go ahead and just transport some of that into the field of drinking and driving. We're sitting in B.C. today, Mr. Chairman, with about 2.2 million people. I would estimate about half of those have vehicles, so we've got roughly 1.1 million cars. We are a very mobile society. But certainly we have got "roadway to graveyard" and we find in the accident days — these are mainly on Fridays and Saturdays — an astonishing statistic that 75 per cent of the Criminal Code driving offences result from alcohol. I think we've got to make it a very firm and established policy in the Province of British Columbia and let everyone know about this. Say it loud and clear that we've got to have one rule and one rule only: Be sober to drive in B.C. or keep off the road.

I continue to criticize the fine system which is

[ Page 1118 ]

permissive under the Criminal Code for these impaired offences. I still think it's a very rotten yardstick. It's insignificant to the well-off and it's indeed back-breaking to those people who are in the lower or middle-income bracket. Unfortunately the heaviest burden is usually never borne by the individual who happens to be at fault but by his or her next of kin.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in British Columbia we entertain as policy that for the convicted drinking driver some commitment of time to a social agency or some type of custody, even for a first offence, should become mandatory. I think that would get the message across.

I've had many discussions with the people who have a great deal more expertise in this field than do I, and it seems to be their concluded decision that the most effective measure so far is the suspension of licence. They think that this gets the message across far better than does the fine.

Even apart from fine or suspension of licence, I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that a convicted drunken driver would have to put in some hours in a hospital or a welfare agency or spend some time in the field of alcoholic rehabilitation or, say, ride shotgun with a traffic officer or even spend some hours in the morgue in order to bring the point properly home.

What I'm suggesting here I think is a far more just and equal form of punishment for all segments of society, and I certainly think it would be an excellent deterrent as well.

For the more serious offences, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, and for the more serious circumstances — repetitions and so forth and so on — imprisonment would still, of course, follow within the provisions of the Criminal Code. So I'm not suggesting that there be an alteration of the Criminal Code, but that there be an expansion to the effect that we bring it home right off the bat that you cannot be on the roadway in British Columbia in a condition where you should not be there.

Now, there's not any point in embarking upon this kind of a programme or any other kind of a programme for drinking and driving unless the message is effectively brought home to the public. I commend the former administration and I comment this administration for the steps that they have taken during the holiday periods with some very, very excellent and stark kind of advertising. I think that's a very good thing.

I think we should post in every liquor outlet — every bar and beer parlour and liquor store and, indeed, every gas pump in the province — the consumptive levels for impairment. Just put down exactly what they are — how many drinks you may take or you should not be on the road. Let that be everywhere and what the penalties for drinking and driving are. For that matter I don't see why there shouldn't be a little bit of a label on every bottle of liquor. "Don't drink and drive." — so we could go ahead and get the point across.

Over and apart from this attitude to the driving problem, which has killed far, far more people in North America than has the Vietnam War, by a long shot, there are still other points that can be followed to try to cure this roadway roulette. We still don't have compulsory driver education, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Attorney-General, in all our B.C. high schools. That should be there. It should be a well-documented course with as much audio-visual aids as possible, and include motor vehicle condition and repair, traffic rules, road worthiness, safety measures, accident causes and consequences. You know, police would be able to give some of these courses and it would be a first-class use to the students if they could hear first-hand from traffic officers as guest lecturers — and, indeed, from coroners — of the terrible consequences of highway violence.

In North America, the pathfinder was California. There, if driver-training courses are not taken, licences may not be issued until 18; otherwise it is 16.

Now, in 1969 the Province of British Columbia at least came close to coming to grips with the matter, because it passed in that session an amendment to the Motor-vehicle Act which read: "Except with the consent of the superintendent, no person under the age of 18 years may drive a motor vehicle unless he is certified under a driver-training programme approved by the superintendent to be qualified to drive a motor-vehicle." That was a good step. Unless I'm incorrect in this, and you could correct me, I gather that has still not been proclaimed. If so, that certainly is dereliction of duty.

For the more interested students and adults, the defensive driving course should be programmed throughout every community in the province. In the remote areas, we don't necessarily have to set up a separate government organization to deal with this. This could be taught in the schools and by the teachers on a part-time basis.

We have to have compulsory province-wide motor-vehicle inspection and testing. We're going along the line there and improving. There is no question about that, but it's still not province-wide and in my view there's not any need to go ahead and build a raft of elaborate, permanent government structures in the outlying areas. What we need to have are more of these mobile testing units.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've lost the branch.

MR. GARDOM: I know you've lost the branch but perhaps you can put a little message in the ear of the person who happens to have the branch or the twig or

[ Page 1119 ]

the whole tree — whatever it may be.

Something that you should consider, Mr. Attorney-General, is perhaps a general review of all of our traffic rules and regulations, particularly the duties and responsibilities of pedestrians. The Lord help any B.C. pedestrian who happens to spend some time in the east or in Europe. They have a very great problem surviving where they certainly don't receive the degree of right of way that they do here. I think, Mr. Attorney-General, there's a long way that we have yet still to go to improve the system of driver safety in our province.

I'd like to mention another couple of topics rather quickly while I'm here on my feet at the moment. One deals with the statute of limitations. Perhaps this might be something that Dr. Kennedy can give specific attention to in his review of the B.C. statutes.

In short, Mr. Attorney-General, as you are aware, tort actions may be commenced within 4 years, 6 years for contract and 20 years for actions dealing with land, but apart from that we have got roughly 300 specific limitations and notice periods in over 100 statutes. These periods skip and waver left to right with varying consistency from a matter of days to months and even, indeed, to a number of years. Now, we know that complete uniformity is not possible, but there's certainly room for better uniformity.

Say in a case of tort and negligence, against engineers, architects, and accountants, we find the usual provision of four years. But then for doctors and nurses in hospitals, it's one year. For dentists and chiropodists, it's six months. Actions against school trustees are six months, provided four months' notice is given. Actions against municipalities, for the unlawful performance of a legal act, are six months, and in other cases 12 months, still with a two-month notice period. In motor-vehicle cases the limitation period appears to be one year.

All of these varying times create a great deal of confusion, and in many cases people are left without remedy.

Dealing with that aspect, I do hope the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will, if it ever deals with claimants, inform them of the fact that they have one year within which to bring their lawsuit. Otherwise, they're still out of luck under the existing measures that we have.

I believe this report that I have in front of me was sponsored at your request, Mr. Attorney-General, or you had something to do with it. It says it's sponsored by the Foundation for Legal Research in Canada, so it wasn't by you, but it was a proposal for the reform of the B.C. Supreme Court rules. It was a very well-documented report prepared by Messrs. John C. Bouck — now Mr. Justice Bouck — and D.W. Roberts. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if steps have been undertaken by him to proceed to reform the rules of the supreme court, and further, if he's given serious consideration to again increasing the jurisdiction of the small debts court.

Small debts court is now $1,000, and county court is $3,000 — that's right. Well, I think, Mr. Attorney-General in these days of inflated money there's no reason why the jurisdiction of the small debts court should not be increased to $3,000 and the jurisdiction of the county court well in excess of what it is now. And we don't need as much formality attached to the proceedings in the county court as we've had before.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: You've got a message for me. How does it read?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If this is what you want, we'll put the message in right now. We don't believe in messing around.

MR. GARDOM: This is the best action I've had in a long time. That's the stuff. I'm glad to hear that, by golly. That's good news.

Since you don't believe in messing around, I'm going to bring up something to you that I have talked about to the Hon. Robert Bonner when he was Attorney-General, the Hon. Les Peterson when he was Attorney-General, and you when you were Attorney-General last year. We still have found no action but a lot of messing around. That is with.... Pardon me, I withdraw the inference.

That deals with the lien for woodsmen's wages. As you well know, Mr. Attorney-General, the Act only protects woodsmen for wages, but it excludes any protection for contractors and subcontractors. This statute was something that worked in the days when one, didn't find contractors and subcontractors in the woods, but today they're by far the majority, I suppose, if the logging is carried on by them. These people do not have any protection of lien against the logs which they produce. There have been several absolutely disgraceful cases of these small subcontractors, who are just working for so much per 1,000, being absolutely sent down the garden path and ending up without a dime as a result of all of their labours — in many cases months and months of labour — because they were unable to attach the logs.

There was a case last year that came before the British Columbia Court of Appeal. If you'd like the reference, I could find it and give it to you. It was exceptionally critical of the fact that this procedure has not been amended and improved and brought effectively up to date. I heard some rumblings in the wings that thought has been given to a complete, 100 per cent revision of the Mechanics' Lien Act. If that is the case, it would certainly be a worthwhile measure

[ Page 1120 ]

in my view that for once and for all the woodsmen in the Province of B.C. be given effective protection, because they still have none. I personally am getting exceptionally weary about even raising this point, because I've done it ever since 1966 and the ball has just been tossed around between various departments of government with absolutely no action at all. There could not be any complaints that I know of from the log owners, because all they have to do is effectively pay their bills.

Mr. Attorney-General, as you know, a carpenter or a plumber who performs services and who's not paid is entitled to place a lien against the improvements he has created, whether he's a contractor or whether he's just working straight wages. But it's not so with the people of the woods and I think it's most unfair.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I only have a few words to add to this debate on this Minister's estimates. I'm going to go back to the second to the last speaker and his remarks pertaining to the mounted police and how efficient they are.

On the main transcontinental highway, of course, there's no doubt that they're under considerable pressure from the officers in charge of these detachments. I'm sure at the end of the day these particular constables have to report in with so many people caught in their radar traps. This is a practice that's been passed on through all the history of the police in the province, as far as I know. I've had a little bit of experience at it and I happen to know that when the local inspector comes down and checks out your book, you should have at least X number of convictions or this type of work done.

I'm not particularly concerned about highway patrol work because I know that in fact they do get a lot of people caught in radar traps, they're doing a service to everybody on the highway. I have been caught on several occasions myself.

I'm a little alarmed, though, about the attitude that policemen have in small detachments. They like to catch speeders and things that are a little more interesting like this. They can stay in the protection of their car. They're warm, and especially in our part of the country where it's pretty chilly they don't like to get out and prowl around the country, for example, looking for something that has been stolen. If you lose a spare tire in that country or a jack or a piece of merchandise out of the back of your car....

I'd like to give you an example. A year ago last fall, I lost my chain saw....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Granny's got it!

MR. KELLY: There was a set of tracks leading up to this chain saw and I went down to the local detachment, two or three miles away, and I reported that saw stolen. I gave them a serial number and I said: "There's a dandy set of tracks there, and I'd like you to go up there and investigate this thing." Well, apparently they turn in the serial numbers to the local repair shop that repairs chain saws and what-have-you, and this is a method of catching these people. Well, I found out about three months later that they had never, ever turned that number in, and I'm still waiting for them to find the fellow that stole my chain saw.

This goes on and on. It's been told to me by many of my constituents that if you lose anything in this fashion, they don't think the police are generally apt to get out and search for this item or whatever it might be. I think they're more inclined to stick to the highways and easier jobs that don't really require any amount of real police work. I think that they should be checked up on this and that when somebody loses something, even if it's a chicken out of his chicken house, at least there should be some effort to catch this fellow.

Now I'd like to go back to one of the issues that I brought up with you not long ago, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, about the small detachments — in fact a one-man detachment in some instances — that I think should be incorporated in our province.

You know, years ago under the provincial police they did have one-man detachments throughout the province. I think they rendered an excellent service. There might be a community of 600 or 800 people. Present administrators of the justice seem to think that because there is a detachment 50 or 75 miles away that is sufficient, that in fact they're modernized enough now with aircraft or high-speed cars that that's close enough to those people and they don't need the presence of an officer of the law in these communities.

One that I would like to mention, of course, is Granisle. They have a town of 800 or 900 people. They have just opened recently a very large hotel with drinking facilities in that hotel, and it's 50 miles to the nearest policeman. Especially in winter, when weather is adverse, like we have up in that country, 50 miles might as well be 500 miles if you need a policeman in a hurry. I know that there'll be remarks made that you can't have a policeman on duty all the time, and that maybe this would be a reason why you couldn't have a police force or a detachment in a small community this way.

Conservation officers work this way: if they hear of an infraction of the game laws they'll go out at any time of the day or night and try to apprehend the criminal or catch anybody who is breaking the game Act. I think a detachment could be made in these smaller communities, especially if they're very isolated.

We're expanding in northwestern British Columbia

[ Page 1121 ]

and I think quite a few of these communities will be created. I think they should have police protection right in them.

A recent incident happened in my riding at Fort Ware. A radio telephone message was sent to me that a drunken man was attempting to assault somebody with a dangerous weapon. I asked, through your department, Mr. Attorney-General, for the police to go there. I can't blame the police in this particular instance because the weather conditions were extremely bad, but it was five days before the police could get there.

I think that if the Attorney-General's department had allowed the police to deputize a man in a community as large as that, a community of 200 people, he in fact could be a sort of special constable or somebody who could actually administer some form of authority to apprehend that person in this particular capacity. A man who is inebriated, or even if he isn't but who is dangerous to society should be apprehended. Police in communities like this should be able to deputize somebody to at least look after things for them until they're able to get there.

For example, in this particular community one man was killed this winter. He was shot and killed. Two other people have been shot this winter. For a community of 200 people, that is a tremendous amount of violence. I really think the police should see fit somehow or other to have somebody take over their work when there isn't a policeman in attendance at that community. I wonder if you could tell me something about that, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Omineca has made interesting suggestions. Some of them are matters which, under the new policing legislation, will be able to receive careful consideration and some direction to the police forces involved. I don't want to say more at this time, but I appreciate the suggestions he has made.

MRS. JORDAN: I also listened with great interest to the Member's comments and the Minister's reply.

I would like to go back in the debate to some of the major issues at stake in this province and which should be very much a concern to the Attorney-General. I would add that I was very pleased to hear him say a few minutes ago that he doesn't believe in messing around, Mr. Chairman. I don't either, and I'm glad you've changed so quickly. I'm now going to solicit evidence that you don't believe in messing around and that you are going to assume your responsibilities, Mr. Attorney-General, and accede to my request.

I suggest the major issues at stake in this debate are, in fact, the role of the Attorney-General in full scope of the administration of justice in his province. We have repeatedly stated our concerns and the reasons for those concerns.

I want to speak specifically at this moment in terms of the Fourth Estate. As the Attorney-General knows, in the British parliamentary system, we speak in terms of the Fourth Estate as being the press and the media. The Attorney-General knows, as we all know, that it is a time-honoured principle that there is a time-honoured fundamental role for the Fourth Estate in parliamentary proceedings and within the parliamentary confines. That role is for them to work by and large as a public watchdog within these chambers and to report the same without fear of political pressure or fear of interference from any political party within the confines of that chamber and, above all, without fear of intimidation.

I suggest to you, Mr. Attorney-General, and say before this House, that I am really at a loss for words to describe my shock and, on behalf of the Premier, my embarrassment at the unprecedented and vulgar attack made by the Premier of this province....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Point of order. This is not under my estimates. You are saying something about the Premier, I think. It's not under my estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General said earlier in this debate — and I respect his words — that if we have a matter of concern in relation to the administration of justice, we should place the evidence before him. That's what I'm attempting to do. If the Attorney-General would not be so sensitive but be more concerned about his role as administrator of justice in this province, then he would listen to what I have to say and then, after I presented my evidence, if he doesn't wish to accede to my request, I either have to present it again or bow to his statements.

Mr. Attorney-General, I think the time has come when the shrugging of your shoulders has got to be answered. Either you are not concerned about your role as administrator of justice in this province or else you leave us no alternative but to conclude that you don't even know what's going on in this province and in your own department. I wish you would just sit and listen because this attack in the confines of this building which is under your jurisdiction was made by a very responsible Member of this House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's not my vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Attorney-General, it was made on the member of the Fourth Estate who is entitled to justice and the responsible administration of justice in this province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Order, there was no criminal charge involved.

[ Page 1122 ]

MRS. JORDAN: How do you know? I haven't made my statements yet. Don't be so antsy, Mr. Attorney-General; you obviously are under very severe pressure. You've blown your cool this afternoon as you never have in this Legislature before in my eight years here.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: You're not going to get your salary, Mr. Attorney-General, until we have some assurance from you that you're going to assume the responsibilities for which you are paid.

The member of the Fourth Estate (Miss Nichols) whom I'm referring to is a time-honoured columnist and reporter, who had an honoured position and served well in the parliamentary press gallery in Ottawa, and who is considered one of the most challenging and responsible reporters in the Province of British Columbia on this day.

I wish to ask the Attorney-General to investigate the charges that have been made. I wish to present for his interest a statement of this reporter and read it into the record so that he can adjudicate on the basis of the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MRS. JORDAN: It's an article by Marjorie Nichols....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got to bring this into the Attorney-General's administrative estimates or get on another tack.

MRS. JORDAN: This is exactly what I'm doing, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It doesn't sound like that to me.

MRS. JORDAN: We won't have any more ballyhoo from a Chairman who takes orders from the Premier of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When I am Chairman, it is my responsibility...Order! Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, unless you have the authority to use that button in this assembly, take your finger off it forthwith! What the hell is this? You take your hand off that button.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm ordering you to take your seat.

MR. CHABOT: You take your hand off that button. What is this, a dictatorship, or something? Commie rule.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Sit down!

MR. CHABOT: Take your hand off that button! You have no right, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you have no right and I'm telling you right now to keep your hand off that button from now on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're to take your seat when I stand.

MR. CHABOT: And you keep your hands off that button!

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can challenge my ruling and that will be dealt with in the proper manner.

MR. CHABOT: With 36 sheep over there...Mr. Chairman. No way. You just keep your hands off that button!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to make a point with the Member that was speaking. I don't want you to make allegations that the Chair is not treating you fairly. If you don't like my ruling, you can challenge that ruling. That's what you were doing.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what you were doing! I'll allow you to continue, but when I call you to order I expect you to stop. We'll decide where order is at. Then you will continue if you are in order. I'll let you continue as long as you stay in order.

MRS. JORDAN: I want to make it very clear as I am presenting this evidence that I am relating this to the Attorney-General, to his estimates in relation to his role as chief law enforcement officer in this province.

I would quote from Marjorie Nichols in the Sun Wednesday, March 13, 1974. She says:

"Victoria.

"Yesterday afternoon I was standing in the corridor of the Legislature attending to my business...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm asking you to come to order. The Attorney-General is not in charge of

[ Page 1123 ]

this chamber in that respect. I'm afraid you are out of order on that matter.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to present...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am telling you that you're out of order on that matter!

MRS. JORDAN: ...to the Attorney-General, as chief law-enforcement officer and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! When I call you to order, we'll decide where the order's at. I've said that that's out of order for you to raise that now. If you don't....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, what are your reasons for ruling it out of order? What is your authority? Whose jurisdiction does this come under?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: The Speaker? Then call the Speaker and I'll present the evidence to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're dealing with the Attorney-General's administration.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Are you trying to force closure, Mr. Chairman? Are you trying to hide the actions of the Premier of this province? Are you trying to protect an inadequate Attorney-General in this province? We're trying to bring evidence which....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm asking you to take your seat!

MRS. JORDAN: We know he doesn't read affidavits that come to his office. He listens to the debates. On that basis I ask him to allow me to present my debate so that he can rule.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you take your seat? I've ruled that that's out of order. When I do that, you're not to continue to argue. You're to either challenge that ruling, or you're to get onto another subject.

MR. SMITH: Point of order. Would you kindly quote your source and reference for that particular ruling? What is the source for your decision and the reference for your decision, please? What standing order of the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Speaker's corridors have traditionally been under his jurisdiction. What we're dealing with right now is the administrative estimates of the Attorney-General. This is not in order at this time.

MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Chairman, may I submit to you the fact that if this was....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may challenge the ruling, if you like, but don't make an argument.

MR. SMITH: No, I'm just stating another point of view. I'm not challenging your ruling on a point of order. All I'm suggesting is that it wasn't just a casual conversation between the Premier of the province and a member of the Fourth Estate. This should surely come under the jurisdiction of the Hon. Attorney-General to investigate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've made your point. It's not in order at this time.

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order. May I seek your guidance, then? When there has been an attack on a member of the Fourth Estate and, in fact, the very foundations of the parliamentary process, to whom do I present my evidence and of whom do I ask an opinion as to whether or not it is a justified, situation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If there is an alleged violation in the corridor, you may present that to the Speaker at any time. But it is out of order on vote 11 that we have before this committee right now.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll bow to your ruling, but I do so with regret and I do so with the statement that it's a tragedy that the Attorney-General is not willing to assume his responsibility. He is not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you continue on vote 11.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Get a lawyer!

MRS. JORDAN: There's a comment under the Attorney-General's vote from a hack from Kamloops who says he lives in the rip-off capital of the world. "Get a lawyer!" This is the problem under this vote right now, that we have heard the Attorney-General when he's seeking his salary go round and round and round and round...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you deal with the matter before this committee?

MRS. JORDAN: ...and legal defence, and the problem is, Mr. Chairman, that this is not what concerns the people of British Columbia about their Attorney-General. They're not interested in the weird and wonderful wanderings of lawyers. This is one of

[ Page 1124 ]

the most serious problems that they have to contend with. They are deeply concerned about actions that affect them directly, and they are deeply concerned that in this province they are finding themselves caught up in a maze of bureaucracy and jurisdictions and they have no recourse. The only recourse we get is a suggestion from this government to see a lawyer. What is the Attorney-General doing — trying to perpetuate the legal business? I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't mind if you laugh. You know, I'm just a simple soul from the boondocks of British Columbia. (Laughter.) I have a feeling that there are a heck of a lot more of me in this province than there are of you ethereal, vacuumized lawyers. The problem is that nobody will listen to the simple voice of the people of this province.

We've sat here this afternoon and seen the Attorney-General shrug his shoulders, be facetious and, in fact, destroy his credibility as Attorney-General about serious questions and charges. We've seen him manoeuvre and manipulate and skate around better than Karen Magnussen on legal technicalities. All I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that this Attorney-General assume his responsibilities as chief law officer and chief protector of human justice in this province.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) stated historically that in other parliaments the Attorney-General is not a member of the cabinet. I'm coming to the conclusion that this should be the case in British Columbia, particularly with reference to this government.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the little quacker of — what's your new department? — the Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) who tells the farmers that they didn't put the freeze on to protect farmland. You put it on to get cheap industrial land, and you know it, so don't you have a great deal to say. You're not doing anything to help the little businessman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you to get back to vote 11?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I leave this part of the debate assuring you that I'll bring this matter up again and assuring the Attorney-General that one way or another, Mr. Attorney-General, you are going to have to protect the rights of the Fourth Estate in this province.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's a tough act to follow.

I want to get to the matter I raised yesterday afternoon. I'm very disappointed that the Attorney-General glossed over with a brief answer the comments that I had made and, in fact, the concerns that are being expressed in some parts of British Columbia right now with respect to major changes in policing. He stood up quickly to say that we'll still have municipal police commissions — there's no intention here to establish a single B.C. police force. Well, that wasn't the point of the comment, Mr. Attorney-General, and you know it, through you, Mr. Chairman. You know it very well. When I asked you to comment specifically on a new B.C. police commission, I asked you to comment on the diminishing of authority of municipal police commissions and the cutting back of the authority which they have enjoyed over a good number of years, and you glossed over that. You passed it by.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's a bill coming in.

MR. CURTIS: I don't know there's a bill coming in.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It was in the Speech from the Throne.

MR. CURTIS: I don't know that there is a bill coming in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that if he's asking a question about a proposed police commission, this would be a matter of legislation and therefore would not be under the present administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General.

MR. CURTIS: I think you are incorrect, Mr. Chairman. I think that you're attempting to stifle debate with respect to the chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia and his salary, and that is what we are here to discuss.

I challenge your ruling. There's been too much of this in the past few days — far too much. I challenge the ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands raised a matter which had to do with a proposed police commission. I informed him that

[ Page 1125 ]

discussion of this would be out of order inasmuch as it involves legislation, and that therefore under the rules of the House, it would be out of order. He appealed my ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is whether the ruling of the Chair shall be sustained.

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

YEAS — 32

NAYS- 14

MRS. JORDAN: I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to relate an offending matter to the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Privilege.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is your point of order to do with what this Member is rising on? Well, perhaps I can clear up the matter to everyone's understanding. Is the Hon. Member wishing to refer to a matter that took place in committee?

MRS. JORDAN: I wish to rise on a point of privilege on the matter which is offensive to the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say that it must be a matter that's in committee or it cannot be discussed in the House unless by report.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the question has to do with behaviour in the Speaker's corridor which relates to the decorum and dignity of this House....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out on a point of order to the Hon. Member, to deal with this question now would be incorrect since the committee has not risen. The committee has called me in to deal with a point of order that was raised in committee. It is not at this time appropriate to discuss some matter that occurred either in the corridor or anywhere else except at the appropriate time. I'm sure that if you choose an appropriate time, I'd be most happy to listen.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, if you'd just listen now, I would say that I am seeking your advice as to when would be the appropriate time and the first opportunity to discuss this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The appropriate time is when the House is not in committee, and that is not now because the House is still in committee. I've merely been asked to come to the chair to decide on whether a ruling was correct or not. The House has decided on that matter, and I call the Chairman to go back into committee.

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'll defer to the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) if he's not finished, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member for Langley giving me just a few more moments. Would the Attorney-General, since we are discussing his salary, tell the committee the terms of reference and responsibilities assigned to Dr. John Hogarth and what he is doing at the present time in connection with policing in the province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, John Hogarth is a consultant who is so engaged by my department. He is assisting in the preparation of the police legislation that was envisaged in the Speech from the Throne.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Attorney-General, how many meetings have been held in the province by Dr. Hogarth? What sort of contact is he having with the outside world?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, two consultative meetings where there was group representation. I mentioned them yesterday.

MR. CURTIS: The Attorney-General, I suggest, feels that is "maximum consultation." That was his

[ Page 1126 ]

phrase yesterday: "He has been involved in maximum consultation on this matter, a matter affecting policemen and women throughout the province." Two meetings. Big deal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All right. You're being a little facetious.

MR. McCLELLAND: I want to raise a matter that is of some concern to my constituency and has now become some concern, as I understand it, on a much wider area since it was brought up in public this morning, I'm just informed a few moments ago, on one of the Vancouver hotline radio programmes, on CJOR.

It relates to a matter with which I was in contact with the Attorney-General some time ago, a matter of one Wesley Vaughan of Aldergrove, British Columbia. I must admit, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General answered my inquiries at that time. Since then, I've had a number of other correspondence with other people involved in this case. However, I told the Attorney-General at that time I was completely unhappy with the reply to my request for assistance and I remain unhappy about not only the Attorney-General's replies but the replies I've had from other people involved.

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to relate this case. I've said that the person involved is Wesley Vaughan of Aldergrove. On June 13, 1960, Mr. Vaughan, while 16 years of age, was involved in an accident in a town in the Okanagan. His vehicle went through a stop sign at that time. A passenger in the vehicle, riding in the rumble seat, as I understand it, was thrown out and suffered quite severe head injuries. I must say that at the time there was no alcohol involved in this case whatsoever. At the time, when the RCMP investigated the accident, the driver was told there wouldn't be any charges laid.

I must remind the committee, Mr. Chairman, that this driver was 16 years of age at this time. And he was told at that time....

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

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't believe this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I didn't believe a statement that you made to the House the other day either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Attorney-General state his point of order?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: My point of order is that I am familiar with this matter, but not terribly familiar with it. I'd be glad to look at it again. But it is a matter as to whether or not there should be a change in insurance law, and that is not in my department. That would be the Minister of Transport.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I don't think the Hon. Member has yet reached the point in his remarks where I could rule him out of order. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much. I will try and reach that point as quickly as possible. I'm sure I will.

Mr. Chairman, I must express extreme disappointment in the attitude of the Attorney-General ever since we began this debate on his salary estimate. It seems that nothing is in his department — nothing. He passes the buck on every single issue that's been raised in this House since his estimates came up. The latest example of his buck passing was last evening when he copped out in relation to the matter of some kind of action in regard to the terrible drug dependency problems in this province.

I say to the Attorney-General that he, in effect, yesterday abandoned the Matheson report and turned the problem of drug dependency over to the Human Resources department for once and for all. He said that he wants no part of it. I just say to the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, that I hope that the consequences will be on his conscience, because there'll be some terrible and fearful consequences.

If I can continue, Mr. Chairman, with the dispute in question: as I mentioned, the driver in this instance was told that there would be no charges laid because of a dispute at that time over location of the stop sign, and this 16-year-old went away from that accident with a full understanding that there would be no charges laid.

However, the injured girl — and she's to be commended for that — kept the case open, or at least her agent did, until January of 1973 — 13 years later, Mr. Chairman, 13 years later. At that time, in January of 1973, this driver, this young man, was found guilty of gross negligence. He claimed, and it was claimed during the court case, that although he wasn't charged at the time of the accident — 13 years previously — that was completely irrelevant; it didn't matter. It didn't matter that there were no charges laid at that time; he was still convicted of gross negligence in relation to this accident.

I must say that he wasn't driving his vehicle with no insurance. He had all the insurance that was legally required at that time, 13 years ago. But at that time it wasn't necessary, in order for a driver to establish responsibility — in order for him to get a pink card — it wasn't necessary to have the kind of passenger coverage that he found necessary at this late date.

So it's important to remember that the driver was

[ Page 1127 ]

16 years of age, he had all the insurance that was legally required, there was no alcohol involved, and he wasn't charged at that time.

Mr. Chairman, that driver today is married and has two children, and is attempting to make a living for his family. But he's now faced, because of a judgment that was made 13 years later, with a penalty initially of $14,785 which, with other costs on top, is going to be around $18,000 — an $18,000 penalty on this young man.

When he expressed the thought at the time of the judgment that he wouldn't be able to pay that kind of money, he was told.... Perhaps I am getting a little ahead of myself, Mr. Chairman, because the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund paid the judgment, which is normal in this kind of case. The Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund paid the judgment and then billed the young man. It's a fairly normal practice; I'm not disputing it.

But when the young man told the people that he wasn't able to make this kind of a payment, his driving privileges were suspended. He was told that he wouldn't be allowed to drive in the Province of British Columbia any longer until he made arrangements to pay off that $18,000.

Now anyone else, you or I, or any other citizen of British Columbia — I believe I'm correct in this although I'm not a lawyer — but it's my understanding that anyone else who finds himself in this kind of a situation would go into personal bankruptcy and cancel the debt. I understand that that's a fairly simple procedure and there's all kinds of help available.

But this young man, should he take that route, will find that he'll never again be able to find employment in the career of his choice, which happens to be as a truck driver, because he won't have a driver's licence. Even though the avenue of personal bankruptcy may be open to him, he'll get a further penalty because his driver's licence will be taken away from him and he won't be able to go back into the kind of employment that he enjoyed before.

Where's the justice in that, Mr. Chairman? It certainly is different treatment for different people in our society. And the Attorney-General should address himself to that problem.

Where is the justice, Mr. Chairman, in a young man attempting to raise a family in British Columbia, paying for an accident that happened 13 years ago while that driver was a minor? He was only 16 years of age at that time. Where is the justice in that? Yes, he was fully insured to the letter of the law.

I'd like the Attorney-General to address himself to this problem again. There seems to be some question, certainly some question in the minds of the young family, about the actual conduct of the investigation and the trial. Perhaps the Attorney-General would use his good office to make sure that there was no injustice there.

The original response from the Attorney-General to my request was both confusing and inadequate, in my opinion. As a matter of fact, when the Attorney-General handed me the response, I think those were the words he might have used: it was a little, confusing and he wasn't happy with it but here it was. Well, you know, that's not good enough.

I would have expected that the Attorney-General would have treated this matter a little more carefully and would have attempted to investigate it a little more carefully so that we could have seen some way out of the dilemma that this young person finds himself in today.

The Attorney-General is attempting to treat the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund as an organization which is completely divorced from government. He says that it's a separate organization and it has nothing to do with government. Yet that fund is set up by an Act of this Legislature. It was set up.... The Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund is an Act of this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: You're talking about the Unsatisfied Judgment Act; I'm not. I'm talking about the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund.

Whatever it is, somehow the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund holds the power to suspend licences — motor vehicle licences. Now if it doesn't have a pretty close relationship with government, how does it get the right to suspend a person's motor vehicle licence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would make two points. One is that I would first of all ask the Hon. Member if the Attorney-General is responsible for administering this fund. Secondly, the Motor Vehicle Branch is now under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

MR. McCLELLAND: I would suggest, with respect, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General is responsible for the administration of justice in this province, and that's what we're asking for in this case — justice. Now the Attorney-General is also responsible for enforcing the laws of this province. The question I ask is not one to be asked of the Motor Vehicle Branch; it's one to be asked of the Attorney-General, because apparently this separate organization has the power to suspend drivers' licences as a tool to ensure payment or repayment of debt.

Now where's the justice in that and how come? It seems to me that because of this action it effectively cuts off the bankruptcy proceedings which are freely

[ Page 1128 ]

available to other citizens in our society. And bankruptcy proceedings, I believe, also come under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General.

Now the Attorney-General in his answer to me said, "This was not a debt to the Crown which could be excused." But it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Crown sure has a close relationship here, somewhere or another, and should consider that it does have, in this kind of case, a proprietary interest.

I'd ask the Attorney-General to address himself to that interest because, Mr. Chairman, a family of four people is now being severely penalized — and I mean severely penalized — by the so-called sins of the father when he was a 16-year-old-minor. The family has now been placed in the situation of facing what really amounts to a lifetime of debt, one which will mean an impossible strain on their future. I'd certainly hate to be in the kind of position of attempting to hold a family together....

Yes, let me just finish; I'll be two or three minutes, Mr. Chairman.

I'd hate to be in the position of that family relationship, over the years with that kind of debt hanging over their heads. I'd say that the state in this instance, Mr. Chairman, is imposing a pretty tragic injustice.

I've talked to the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund people. They're taking, I suppose, a reasonable approach as far as they're concerned because the regulations are there and they're following them, I guess. I suppose there's a legal and proper debt. I'm not disputing any of that; it's all there. Nevertheless, here's this family.

Mr. Vaughan, the claimant — or the person with whom I'm concerned — has an income of about $300 a month, take-home pay. His wife has to work. She gets about $200 a month take-home pay. That's $500 a month and their expenses are $504 a month.

That's about par for families in British Columbia who are all walking the budgetary tightrope day by day by day. They're the same as thousands and thousands of other people in our province. They're on a tightrope with regard to budgets, and particularly with inflation, much of it being caused by this socialist government.

The Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund has now agreed to a $10-a-month repayment. Now that's pretty reasonable: $10 a month — at least until Mr. Vaughan's circumstances change. That's not much but, for God's sake, this man still has that $18,000 hanging over his head for what will be the rest of his life.

If there's interest involved, and I assume there is — I cannot imagine any debt that wouldn't have some interest involved — that debt will grow and grow and grow with no hope, Mr. Chairman, of that debtor ever getting his head above water. It will get bigger and bigger instead of smaller and smaller, and he'll never ever discharge it.

I wonder if we have the right as a society, Mr. Chairman, to impose such a burden on a young family. I just appeal to the Attorney-General to take this case up once more, to investigate it, to open the door for this young family to at least normal bankruptcy proceedings, to open the door and find a way out for this family.

I think we must demand that a way be found for this young family, because if we don't we'll destroy the initiative, we'll destroy the dignity, and we'll destroy the hope of a four-member family, in the name of a mistake that was made when this young man was 16 years of age. That's not good enough for British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, speaking very briefly, the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund was set up by the old government. This case that has been brought up, the Vaughan case, is an unusually tragic one, because the accident happened when he was so young, a long time ago. But there are many victims who are being required by the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund to pay debts arising out of car accidents in the Province of British Columbia — many of them.

The thing that worries me in the first place is whether that Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund should have any right to require or obtain the cancellation of somebody's driving licence...

AN HON. MEMBER: No way it should.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...in order to force the payment of that debt. Now perhaps the Hon. Member would agree with me that we could step in as government and say that must come to an end, that that old vicious system — and that's what it was — should come to an end.

Now the other thing is: can we approach what is in effect a private company, set up by the private insurance companies, and say "We demand that you cancel the indebtedness of, not only Vaughan, but all of these other people, arising out of these accidents"? — cancel their contracts?

That's one of the reasons for the change in the insurance situation, one of the reasons for ICBC. We wanted to get away from this. That young fellow would have had coverage, you know, if we had been the government and had put in ICBC a long time ago.

Nevertheless, there are relics of injustice from that old system that we still have to grapple with. I want to look very carefully at the right of that indemnity fund to cancel people's licences who do not pay debts in time to them. But in terms of whether or not we can cancel the debt, that's another more serious question; but we'll look at both.

[ Page 1129 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, just as briefly in response: that's all we're asking at this point. I think that the Attorney-General will agree that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. I just ask that the Attorney-General look into those extenuating circumstances.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I have to look at them all.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, look at them all, all right. Look at them all, but at least look at the extenuating circumstances in this particular case.

It strikes me as just a little unreasonable that a person who was involved in something as a minor is now being forced to pay for something he did as a minor. I don't know of any other circumstances of the same kind; it just seems unreasonable.

All we ask, Mr. Attorney-General, is that you look into those extenuating circumstances and certainly allow the door to normal bankruptcy proceedings to be open without some kind of artificial blocks.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

It also reports that a division took place on a motion on vote 11 and requests that this be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

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

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we have a motion before the House. Usually matters of privilege can be taken up before we adjourn. Is this an instant matter of privilege relating to yourself or some complaint of your own? Yours?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it something to do with you?

MRS. JORDAN: It's a matter, Mr. Speaker, that I tried to bring up under the Attorney-General's estimates and was ruled out of order. I feel that it is a matter of privilege in that it offends the decorum and the dignity of this House and your chambers. I would appreciate the opportunity of discussing this matter with you in the privacy of your chambers at your convenience.

MR. SPEAKER: You're always entitled to do that. It's the general rule that you can either seek advice from the Speaker in his chambers or you can raise the matter in the House; but the question really is whether it touches upon you. If it has something to do with you, then it can be raised in the House; but if it hasn't, then it's something to be done by substantive motion by any Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel it does touch me because I am a Member, an elected Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, in that case, perhaps you can consult with the Speaker on the matter, and I'll see what advice I can give.

On motion 13.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in supporting this motion and asking the House to adopt it I would like to state that I presented certain excerpts from a radio script to this Legislature with regard to allegations that were already public knowledge — research that had been carried on by one of the largest, if not the largest, news media in the lower mainland.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, does the Hon. Member have a copy of his motion? The motion as presented must be presented to the Chair, duly signed, for our records, and also for scrutiny by the Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: One of the purposes, Mr. Chairman, of asking that this motion be adopted and that a royal commission be named, is that that royal commission can also bring in recommendations which can guide this government in a completely new role in which they are moving. This government now has taken upon itself the right to invest the dollars of the taxpayers of British Columbia in the marketplace. In so doing, they are seeking outside advice and hiring advisers. These advisers are not protected by the oath of secrecy of the cabinet. These advisers are not Members of this Legislature, and these advisers, indeed, are not even in many cases members of the civil service.

The purpose of this motion is to clear up the air of uncertainty that exists in this province tonight. We don't know, Mr. Chairman, how many more public companies this government is planning on investing the taxpayers' dollars in. We don't know that maybe at this time negotiations may, indeed, be going on by the government to purchase more companies. They might be companies dealing in the lumber business, they could indeed be companies involved in the mining industry....

[ Page 1130 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Do you have a point of order?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I realize that this motion is of great interest to the Member, but we have been advised on a couple of occasions in the estimate debate that there is a court case started, or the writs have been issued, on exactly the same material that the Member is speaking about.

I wonder if you would advise the House if this motion can be debated in the required fullness while this writ is being looked at by the courts. The details appear to be exactly the same as that which the Member is talking about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask a question on the same point of order raised? I have no knowledge of the writs or the wording of the writs. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), who has raised this matter and brought it before the House, would read out the actual wording of the writs in question to which he refers.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members, as the point of order has been raised, that in any event, without having a long and distracting discussion about what proceedings are sub judice at the moment, unfortunately the rules of the House provide that a private Member cannot move a motion, and certainly no Member of the House can move a motion to appoint a royal commission or the effect of which would be to cause a royal commission to be appointed. That is the prerogative of the Crown and no Member has the right to affect or interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown.

I refer the Hon. Members to Speakers' Decisions, volume 2, page 64, on a decision of Mr. Speaker Keen. There was a motion that the House take into immediate consideration — this is in the Journals of the House for March 1, 1920, at page 74.... There was a motion by Mr. Haines, seconded by Dr. MacIntosh, that the House take into immediate consideration the advisability of appointing a royal commission to inquire into, investigate, and report upon certain matters regarding the Pacific Great Eastern Railway 'Company. The Hon. Mr. Oliver, on a point of order, objected to the motion on the ground that the House had no power to issue a royal commission.

Mr. Speaker Keen stated on that occasion:

"I think the point of order is well taken. I find on reference to section 4 of the Public Inquiries Act that it is provided that royal commissions are to be issued under the Great Seal by His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, where the subject of the inquiry is not regulated by any special law. I know of no special law to the contrary."

The motion is further out of order inasmuch as it assumes to dictate the frame and scope of the royal commission asked for. In addition to that, and examining the proposal by the Hon. Member in his motion, there is really nothing that would result from the nature of his motion, even if it were possible under our rules and this House's authority to appoint royal commissions.

Since there is no such right pursuant to our powers, I must therefore state that the motion is out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have to abide by your ruling, but it is obvious to me that legal maneuvering and proper smokescreens are drawn up in the way of getting justice done in this province.

HON. MR. HALL: On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

HON. MR. HALL: I don't know about smokescreens, Mr. Member, but when you make a blackening charge of graft against a member of the executive council of this government, you've got trouble! That's what you're really talking about.

MRS. JORDAN: How about Marjorie Nichols? What about her?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, that point that was raised was to be my second point of order on this matter, but if the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) wants the details, I'll be quite pleased to read them into the record.

The writ is No. 29819/74 at the Vancouver Registry.

The plaintiffs are Werner K. Paulus, David Howard, Jorgens Dalberg and James Wolstencroft. The defendants are Gary Bannerman and Radio NW Ltd.

The endorsement on the writ is that the plaintiffs' claim is for damages for libel or, alternatively, for slander for words published by the defendants of and concerning the plaintiffs in certain radio broadcasts over radio station CKNW between the 20th and 25th days of February, 1974.

The writ was issued March 7, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think I have to deal with that question because the first point, as I've indicated, deals with a point of order. I therefore must proceed on that basis.

Are there any further motions before the House?

[ Page 1131 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A point of order. I've always looked upon motions as being a recommendation, not a firm obligation on the part of government. Motions have always been treated that way since I've been in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you like the reference again?

MR. CHABOT: That's 1920 — I could read it, I'm sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I can give it to you right now. It is March 1, 1920, Journals at page 74, and it was Mr. Speaker Keen.

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that this motion has been on the order paper for two weeks. This writ was just recently issued — in fact, if I'm not mistaken, just this week. So the motion has been on the order paper. The very fact that the writ.... This motion could have been debated long before this court case, unless somebody in the government had previous knowledge that the court case was going to come up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That isn't a point of order.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, because of the writ referred to by the Provincial Secretary — writ 29819/74 — I would ask leave of the House to withdraw my motion 16 on the order paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: (Mike not on) ...to bring to your attention because you did not rule on the question of the writ a moment ago, but you ruled him out on some other grounds. Now we have the statement of the Provincial Secretary, and I appreciate the fact that he read it into the record. Are we to assume that any newscast of radio station NW between the dates February 20 and 25 referring to any subject will be barred from discussion in this House? That's about all that we are told. That there were certain statements made between in a five-day period by a radio station, and it didn't specify which particular area of their comments would be in court.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter of sub judice is not before the House. It is not necessary to embark on an examination of the problem, but I have just received a statement from the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) on her feet a minute ago that she proposes to ask the House for leave to withdraw her motion in view of a court proceeding that deals with the matter, she says, of her motion. Now, you have to either accept it, whether it has to do with the motion or not. I don't know. All I know is that that's her statement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But Mr. Speaker, the point I am raising is that you, yourself, have been presented with the statement of the Provincial Secretary. Quite properly, Mr. Speaker, you have stated that you would not give any judgment on this because of the fact that another cause had suggested to you that motion 13 should not be put. Now it can be withdrawn for any reason at all, but to suggest that it is being withdrawn on the strength of a court case doesn't make any sense at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, it doesn't matter a whit for what reason any Member asks leave of the House to withdraw a motion. I'm not concerned in making any rulings about why they want to withdraw a motion. It may be as she says or it may be something else, I don't know. But shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll rise on a point of order then. If this motion is withdrawn, does this erase from my head the stigma of guilt? (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. PHILLIPS: Otherwise I'll be faced with the question of not allowing leave. In other words, then, I must go to court. The committee should be formed and I should be either condemned or released. I'm asking your advice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you can ask the Speaker's advice.

MR. PHILLIPS: I walk around still as a convicted man, then.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't ask the Speaker for opinions on a matter of your own judgment or any other Member's judgment. All that I can do is put the question. I did put the question and the House agreed that the motion be removed from the order paper.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you calling for order?

MR. CHABOT: No, I'm rising on a point of order; I'm not calling for order. That's your responsibility, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't want to take away your glory of calling for order now, I'm sure.

MR. SPEAKER: More like vainglory.

[ Page 1132 ]

MR. CHABOT: You suggested to the House last session that you would investigate and bring down a report to the House regarding the use of the cut-off button on the Chairman's desk. We're still waiting for that report. I feel it's being used with increased frequency and without really legal right to use that button.

MR. SPEAKER: I had both my hands on the table all the time.

MR. CHABOT: I said, Mr. Speaker, while in committee. I'm not accusing you, because I think you've been very sparing in the use of your button, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) But I'm suggesting that there's a serious abuse of the rights of the Members of this House by the Chairman when he sits there and constantly holds his finger on the button and denies us the right to express our opinion through the means of communication we have at our desks.

MR. SPEAKER: I have only one question at this stage: were you behaving yourself?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was behaving myself, as I usually am. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: No wonder the button was used.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I hope you hurry and bring down your report because I feel almost silenced by the Chairman as he sits there and frequently interrupts me and frequently abuses my privileges in this House. I hope, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, and without the humour which is probably attached to this request, that you will give it serious consideration.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:10 p.m.