[ Page 1361 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order Schedule for Committee of Supply. Mr. Smith — 1361

Mr. Speaker — 1362

Mr. Smith — 1362

Mr. Speaker — 1362

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates. On vote 11. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1363

Mr. Smith — 1363

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1366

Mr. Gardom — 1368

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1373

Mr. Wallace — 1374

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1378

Ms. Brown — 1380

Mr. Bennett — 1381

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1382

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 1382

The House met at 8:33 p.m.

Orders of the day.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, before proceeding further in orders of the day I wish to rise on a point of order. My point of order is one respecting the procedure of this House during debate in committee of supply. I don't want to recanvass everything that was said just prior to the adjournment for supper this evening, but I do believe that the Hon. Speaker was on the floor of the House at the time that the points were made by both sides.

I would just like to explore with the Speaker one or two points which I think are very pertinent to the arguments that were put earlier today. One is the fact that earlier this afternoon the government Whip delivered to myself a copy of an agenda or a memorandum purported to be the schedule of Ministers, which would be adhered to in the debate in Committee of Supply. He gave me enough copies for all the Members of my caucus and I presume the same type of memorandum was delivered to all other Members of the House.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I'm on a point of order, Mr. Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald). Even you should recognize that.

The schedule or memorandum which was delivered outlined a purported schedule of time and order for the remaining estimates of this House. I would like to refer the Hon. Speaker to our own standing order 45 on pages 17 and 18, respecting Committee of Supply. The outline is quite detailed there, I think, in that it indicates to all the Members of the House that we are limited in the hours of debate and the total number of sittings which will take place during Committee of Supply. There is an allocation, in other words, of both time and total number of sittings and this allocation is spelled out in 45A.

This allocation of time and the amendment to our standing orders came about as a result of a committee hearing which was attended by Members of all parties, although not supported by the official opposition, and we said so. It was supported on the floor of the House by the government majority and became the rules that we all have to live with. We disagree with the system of limits established last year but they remain our standing orders at this present time, so we have to live with the limits that are contained therein, including the speaking limit of 30 minutes at any one time.

Now this afternoon, in my opinion, we were asked to subjugate our rights as Members of this House to a decree by the government Whip. That decree is unacceptable and I believe is one that should never have been put to the Members of this House because it superimposes over the standing orders of our House selective closure. It is something beyond the competence of any Minister, any Member of this House or anyone acting in any capacity. It's for the House to decide, first of all, the number of hours that will be allocated, and that's already been done by these standing orders that we have to live with. It's also for the House to decide and determine the order of speakers, and if that's not done it could be done by the Government Whip in consultation with the other Whips of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. I think, Hon. Member, you really mean in your statement....

MR. SMITH: Order of Ministers, pardon me.

MR. SPEAKER: The order of speakers is decided by the Chair.

MR. SMITH: Right. The order of Ministers who are to be canvassed and their departments.

There is nothing in our rules that allocates a specific number of hours to any particular portfolio. That is the way it should be, because there are some portfolios which will require many more hours of canvassing than others. I think that should be left to the discretion of the Members of this House. It's beyond anyone, in my opinion, in any position within the House, individually, to suggest to the other Members of the House that they want to design some mechanism to define the number of hours that will be allotted for any one particular Minister.

I would like to refer the Hon. Speaker to May, 18th edition. Page 51 describes the powers of parliament as follows: "... the power of parliament is so transcendent and absolute, as it cannot be confined either for causes or persons within any bounds." In other words, we are responsible within the precincts of this assembly. No one can dictate to us outside of what our standing orders say, or if we can't find it there, then we have to go to May or some other form that we have used for many years.

I suggest that the decree this afternoon was really an abuse of the rules of this House by the government Whip in which he tried to implement a system which is not in any way dealt with in the standing orders of this House. It is an abuse of our rules and an abuse of the Members of this House.

The point I want to make is that the Legislative Assembly and the Members herein are responsible for our own standing orders, including any amendments thereto. No one person or cabinet Minister or government Whip can take that responsibility away from the Members of this assembly. I would suggest

[ Page 1362 ]

that that was what was being done this afternoon and again as we approached the hour of adjournment when the Hon. Premier got involved in the debate. He suggested that the rules were there, that the memorandum would stand, and that he was prepared to withdraw the memorandum and then reinstitute it. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that it was within his power to do that, no more than it was within the power of the Hon. government Whip to institute such a schedule and impose that upon the Members of this House.

I would respectfully request, Mr. Speaker, that you canvass the whole matter in your own good time and report to the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out I agree entirely with the Hon. Member that there is no right of any individual to determine the business of the House so far as making the decision to do one thing or another. The House itself ordains its own procedures. But I also want to point out that any Hon. Members who may be Whips for their parties may get together to work out things. That is an informal arrangement, they say in tradition, "behind the Speaker's chair" or "the Chairman's chair."

Therefore, so far as anything that happens during the day that is for the House, by any motion that may be put by any Hon. Member, to determine whether the Committee shall rise or continue to sit. The Committee of the Whole House will decide the issue of whether they will continue on one subject during the day. There is one condition that I must attach to this that you will all perceive immediately, and that is that no matter how informal an arrangement may be suggested by any Member, the House itself determines the matter and the order of business is called out by the government each day. That has always been traditional under our rules and I refer you to Beauchesne, page 20 1.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think any list, either alleged to be official or unofficial, has any binding effect on this House.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): There was no arrangement. It was by decree.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't suggest it was an arrangement. I said "any list."

Therefore, the situation is simply this: I will look into the matter in more detail and provide the House with all the authorities that may be mustered. If you have any other suggestions or any help you can give me, any authorities, I would be glad to look at them.

MR. BENNETT: Do you want to have a recess?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I don't think we need it because undoubtedly the House has the power, through the House Leader, to call an order of business. If any Member does not approve of that order of business, he can take the question up on a judgment of the House or a decision of the House on that particular order of business. But, as you know, the estimates are taken up at any time the government thinks proper. I am quoting from page 201 of Beauchesne.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What about what they think is proper?

MR. SPEAKER: I'll certainly look at the question but I think, right off the bat, I can't help but say that the Hon. Member is quite right, that no Member in this House can dictate how many hours you will spend on this and how many hours you will spend on that. That is for the House itself to determine and for the Committee to determine through all the Members.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in pursuing the point and before you canvass the matter further, is there any way that the House itself can determine the allotted number of hours by motion or by...?

MR. SPEAKER: I would think the House could if it wished to, by resolution, alter the number of hours it spends on any subject, but any other way can only be by the House Leader calling out the order of business at the beginning of the Committee's work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or suspension of the rules.

MR. SMITH: You just said the House....

MR. SPEAKER: The House determines its order of business and if you don't approve of an order of business suggested by the government leader, you are entitled to vote against the motion.

I'll look into it in more detail. I must admit that it takes a lot of study on a thing like this, but I think first of all the House Leader can always call the order of business. That has been traditional in every House.

MR. SMITH: It is certainly possible for the House Leader or anyone to move that the rules be suspended. Is that not correct?

MR. SPEAKER: That could be done but any Member of the House could at the same time thwart any such object by simply refusing to give leave, so that doesn't solve the basic dilemma of what the House can do or can't do by its own volition.

[ Page 1363 ]

MR. BENNETT: You said the House determines. Tell us by what method.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll give you a little more detail on it when I've had time to study it in detail.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 11: Minister's office, $86,036.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, this little budget, led off by the salary vote, is only $115 million. I fought like a tiger to get more from Treasury. We're in trouble in some areas due to the financial stringencies of the great depression which overtook North America, but hardly touched B.C. I'm not going to tell you where the areas are where we are really crying, but we are crying a little bit. I wish the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) were here to listen to some of our pleas. Nevertheless, the programmes developed in this department are going ahead on plan.

I hesitate to go into names, but I pay tribute to the assistants I've had: led by David Vickers, the Deputy; Dennis Shepherd, the Deputy; Ed Epp, the Deputy; and Jimmy Rhodes out in left field (laughter); and Dr. Andy Thompson. Once you get into names you run into trouble...Barrie Clark, too; he's doing well — John Brewin, and so forth. But the danger of running into names is that you forget somebody. But I think it's a great team, and the credit doesn't belong to the Minister; I readily acknowledge that.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Quit spreading the blame around. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I believe that the parliamentary process, at the age in which we live, calls upon brevity as a means of expression.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm serious about that; it's no longer the age of Gladstone and Disraeli. The British Parliament, a few days ago, took two days to debate the most historic question ever facing Great Britain, entry into the common market. They assigned the time, and that parliament of over 700 members took two days for that.

So I don't want to filibuster my own estimates, but we're here to answer your questions. We hope the House will grant supply, in particular the salaries — some of the other votes can come or go as they please. (Laughter.) So I'm not going to say anything. I should have mentioned John Hogarth of the Police Commission, too, and there are many other people I know I've forgotten. And Mr. Adrian Wong.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Well, for an Attorney-General who has so much to say outside of the House, when it comes his turn to speak up fully and disclose all of the tremendous things his department has been doing for the last two and a half years, he's strangely silent; strangely silent this evening. He's being very modest, I'd say. Very, very modest. It would seem that, as a matter of fact, he's preparing the ground work for his successor by saying: "Don't blame me for all of the mistakes. It's my responsibility, but I'm not the one that made all of those mistakes; it's my staff." You're attacking your own staff, spreading the blame around here, there and everywhere. Perhaps that is a sign of the times that the Attorney-General is not to be long with us as the Attorney-General. Perhaps some of the people who have been occupying your seat while you were away at energy conferences, and the odd time that you stepped out into the hall to conduct a press conference, have gotten through to your illustrious leader and there's another department in store for you. Or perhaps they are going to put you out to pasture, Mr. Attorney-General. Is that what's contemplated?

During the last two and a half years we've witnessed a succession of changes taking place within the operation and direction of the Attorney-General's department. And we are the first to admit that, that you made, through your department and through the officials of your department and your deputies, a number of major changes with respect to the direction of justice and delivery of justice in the Province of British Columbia.

I think if we wanted to catalogue some of those changes we'd have to mention the Justice Development Commission, the B.C. Police commission and, of course, you've now taken over the administration of all the courts in the Province of British Columbia.

According to your budget you've greatly enlarged at least your budget for the sheriffs' offices in the province. You indicated at least very sketchily what you intend to do in that direction. There's been an expansion in legal aid services, which I believe most people will agree with. You've established the office of the rentalsman and established the B.C. Energy Commission, which you are responsible for, and the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

Some of these endeavours in the pursuit of the expansion of justice in the Province of British Columbia have been relatively successful. I think that I have to say frankly to you, Hon. Attorney-General, that some of the other directions in which you are

[ Page 1364 ]

proceeding have not been so successful. In two and a half years we had expected to see more results than we have so far. As a matter of fact, if you try to analyse the direction which you are taking with your department and the dissemination of justice in the Province of British Columbia in attempts to streamline and improve the judicial system and the delivery of legal services, it makes one wonder what your ultimate goal is in this province.

I think there have been some improvements, but in speaking to your estimates this evening, I think I should catalogue some of the areas that this party, at least, is unhappy with, where we share the concern of a great number of the people in the outside area — that is, the area in which all of us are involved — and that is the area of public concern. If you project the trends established by your department to their ultimate conclusion, I'm of the opinion that whoever is the author of the moves that you're making will before long destroy the foundations of our justice system in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Garbage!

MR. SMITH: You know, the foundation is based on the maintenance of the unequivocal separation of responsibility as between the political level, which we represent in this chamber, the judicial level, which should be completely apart and separate from our responsibility — the courts and the judiciary — and the enforcement part, as represented by the police force in the Province of British Columbia. Presently that's mainly the RCMP, but what the future holds is probably anyone's guess — except to say this: in taking a calculated guess at the direction in which you are proceeding with respect to police forces — the policing of the Province of British Columbia — we have to take a took at your budget, Mr. Attorney-General.

We find out that there is a substantial amount of money uncommitted, at least by last year's standards. You have a salary contingency of $13 million out of a total of $115 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. SMITH: That's $13 million out of a total of $115 million as a salary contingency.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Unbelievable!

MR. SMITH: You have increased the amount of money for the provision of legal services from $3.8 million to $6 million, which is substantial. You have increased the amount of money provided for sheriffs' offices from $1.5 million to $8 million, a total increase of $6.5 million. You have provided for a substantial increase in correctional services. It would seem to me that it would be no small chore for you to find enough surplus money already allocated within your budget, if it was your desire to do so, to use that money to replace the RCMP with a provincial police force in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. FRASER: Right on!

MR. SMITH: The money is there, unallocated and, at this point, unexplained to the Members of this House by a very, very short statement in opening up your estimates by the Attorney-General. I hope this evening that the Attorney-General will be frank and open with the Members of this Committee and explain to us just why the substantial increases are there and what his eventual goal is in the distribution and the delivery of justice to the people in the Province of British Columbia.

It would seem to me that one of the endeavours of the Attorney-General was the establishment of a Justice Development Commission — a commission he had great hopes for, a commission that was designed to streamline, improve and modernize the justice system in the Province of British Columbia.

When one looks at the results, one can't help but feel that some people are correct, that many people may be correct when they suggest that the system is really a $15 million boondoggle; that for the money expended and the benefits and the results received, we don't really have much to hang our hats on right at this moment.

I think perhaps the direction of the Justice Development Commission was best spelled out by an independent person in the town of Kitimat who said that he felt that your department, along with others, suffered from task force-itis, and that they wanted action rather than talk.

This gentleman, Mr. Bernie Gifford of Kitimat, in discussing the Justice Development Commission when the commission members appeared before an open meeting to discuss their responsibilities in the town of Kitimat, said that the commission's proposals for the delivery of legal services, including legal aid, were presented in a discussion paper by a consultant and lawyer Peter Lisk. They came under heavy criticism by Gifford, and Gifford was among those who said they wanted action.

"We have already been task-forced to death by everyone from mental health to the humane society. The vast amount of money spent on CP Air flights to the hinterlands, and the hotel bills to Travel Lodge must be tremendous."

So what people are really asking for at the present time, Mr. Attorney-General, is action, results; not a lot of lip service to the people in this province suggesting that you're going to deliver great things and, in fact, delivering nothing in the way of tangible increases or tangible results in justice to the people of this province.

Let's take a look at some of the areas of concern that we should canvass with the Attorney-General this evening: one is the matter of legal aid, and the delivery of it to the people in the Province of British Columbia. I don't think any of us will disagree with the suggestion that no one should be denied proper legal services because of a lack of funds.

I think the Province of British Columbia is prosperous enough to devise a system which will deliver legal aid to each and every citizen, irrespective of their ability to pay. That was one reason, Mr. Attorney-General, that we had a very active legal aid society in the Province of British Columbia, a society to which you have contributed increasing amounts of money. I agree with that; I think that's a good way to proceed.

But why, then, would the Justice Development Commission suggest that in the delivery of legal aid to the people in the Province of British Columbia we need a legal services commission? — a commission that is supposed to be composed of a number of people drawn both from inside and outside the legal fraternity, a commission that could very likely be responsible, with a substantial budget through your department, for allocating funds for delivery of legal aid to people within the Province of British Columbia, a commission that, in its own good time, would probably employ a substantial staff of legally trained people who would be responsible for the delivery of legal aid to those people who qualify.

Now that, on the surface, sounds like a good idea, but when you tie the delivery of legal aid in the Province of British Columbia to the purse strings of the Department of Attorney-General, you create an obligation which I think should be severed. I think that legal aid should be there without any strings attached. Independent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You must have been bugging my office. That's what I am planning to do.

MR. SMITH: Oh, why didn't you say so, Mr. Attorney-General? Why didn't you say so in your opening remarks to this committee this evening? We would have saved a little time, perhaps.

But it must be independent. There's another way to deliver legal aid: through the existing law profession in the Province of British Columbia — with the exception of those few areas where we do not have adequate trained legal people at the present time — by allowing them to be your representatives. Why shouldn't this have all been set up through the Legal Aid Society that we have in existence in the Province of British Columbia?

I think the Attorney-General must admit to this committee that quite often the people who become involved in the process of law, and those who need legal aid, are on one hand requiring legal aid as a result of some action of the Crown. It is becoming increasingly more prevalent for people to be involved in a case against the Crown or an agency of the Crown as a result of some so-called misdemeanor on their part.

Now is it not one of the criteria, then, of your department to keep a complete and distinct separation from the delivery of that legal aid? There should be no strings attached to it, Mr. Attorney-General. There should be no way which a person who is in the position of requiring that service should feel that in some way the advice they received would be prejudiced by the fact that the person's pay cheque was signed by the provincial government and the Attorney-General's department. I think we want to maintain a separation in that respect, and maintain a dignity for the delivery of legal services in the Province of British Columbia.

I know that the people involved in the Canadian Bar Association, and their branch in the Province of British Columbia, are greatly concerned about the direction that you will take with respect to the future delivery of legal aid in the Province of British Columbia. I would hope that the Attorney-General in committee this evening will discuss with the Members of this committee what he intends to do in this respect.

There is another area that I would like to canvass very, very quickly, and then we can perhaps get on to some other points; that is the so-called right to sue the Crown.

The Attorney-General was very eloquent in introducing this bill to the House a short time ago — at least it seems a short time ago — and was quick to say that the NDP are the first to really let a little sunshine into the Province of British Columbia. But if you analyse the restrictions, and you analyse the agencies of government, which are above and beyond the statutes which we pass, then we have a very great right to question whether the right to sue the Crown is any right at all.

It would seem to me that while you make great of this new statute, it is an illustration of socialist hypocrisy, because the right only exists in certain circumstances, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman. The statute is worded so as to create the illusion of a right, but it doesn't exist. It is an illusory claim, Mr. Attorney-General, one which the public would be well advised to view with skepticism, because it is not there. It is okay to talk about it. It sounds great....

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Okay, I'm going to get to that in just a moment, Mr. Attorney-General.

[ Page 1366 ]

It's great to talk about, but Lord help anyone who needs the benefits of this right to settle a grievance against the Crown. I think that even you will agree that most of the grievances which would come as a result of this statute will be because of grievances against the Crown, the right to sue it, eh? And many cases today before the court involve the Crown in one manner or another. The bill purports to give this right to the people of the province.

There are a number of exceptions, including some Crown agencies, Mr. Attorney-General — for instance, the amendment last session to the Statute Law Amendment Act, which puts the Crown above this legislation with respect to land law and assessment law. Are those not two of the most contentious areas that the Crown and the people of this province are dealing with, not only at the present time, but will have to deal with in the future? I suggest to you that this hardly bequeaths the right to the people of this province when those particular agencies are above the statute that is supposed to have given them that right.

So we have, as I said, the Landlord and Tenant Act, section 50. We have the rentalsman, who is a power unto himself at the present time and is not only a power unto himself but he's also apparently able to delegate that authority and power to his lieutenants, who can exercise it on his behalf; so even he does not have to take responsibility for his actions in that respect. He is above and beyond the call of anyone who has a legitimate claim against the Crown. And we have the Labour Relations Code, in section 34(2), and the Energy Act in section 114, which also includes the set-up of the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

So it would seem to me that the right is only there in a limited sense. Perhaps we were better off with the old fiat that we used to be involved in as far as a right was concerned, because at least once that was issued we knew that we did have a position to go from that point forward. But the right that you suggest is included in this statute (and have said so publicly) and the right that people will find is there when they deal with this statute are two different things, Mr. Attorney-General. I think it should be spelled out clearly that if, on one hand, you tell the people of the Province of British Columbia they have a tight to sue the Crown you also have a responsibility and an obligation to tell those same people that there are certain agencies of the Crown which have been placed in the position where the statute does not apply.

In your estimates this year you have a budget for delivery of legal services and advice to departments of government. I would be interested to know what your intention is with respect to the operation of that department and if, while you're at it, you will canvass some of the misleading advertising that we have seen published by different agencies of government, including the Department of Finance. Certainly it should be a first call on the services of that department to clean up the act of the different departments of government within this province before they proceed any further. What are your intentions in that respect, Mr. Attorney-General?

I think that I have posed a number of questions to the Attorney-General. I'll take my place and perhaps we can listen to him and his replies to some of these points.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member has made some very good points.

In terms of the legal aid, I think I should bring before this session of the Legislature a legal services bill so that some of the things that you mentioned will be in legislative form. I don't think legal aid should be dependent upon applying to a political authority for help in this or that case. I think it should be administered by an independent body. On the other hand, the amount of funds — I think it's $4.2 million that we are devoting towards legal aid in these estimates — is large. The amount we recover from the federal government on that is relatively small because we are restricted to 50 cents per capita so we get about $1.2 million. That's inadequate. I think we should have a separate legal services commission. I think the bar should be represented on that but I think the public should be, too.

I think we will find that there will be legislation introduced and I would hope that some of the decisions that we have difficulty with at the present time and the Legal Aid Society of B.C. has difficulty with will be helped to their solution by a very effective legal aid body which will really bring dedication to this problem of extending legal services to people who are without that kind of legal advice when they need it at the present time.

We need to know what the mix should be: to what extent should there be community legal aid offices and to what extent should it be fee for service? It varies in different parts of the province. Frankly, one of my problems is that I have five legal aid community offices working now and others planned, but I can't find the lawyers. We start a new law school; that's a big thing, We get another 80 people coming on stream but our population in this province, in spite of the political climate, has been growing at such a rate that even the 80 additional a year will barely be keeping up with demand. So we have to look further.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You're hiring too many in the civil service.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You do something and it's inadequate because the times are so swiftly changing. That's part of the problem.

[ Page 1367 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: You're hiring too many in the civil service.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we've had to, to rationalize the thing and prosecute some of these people who get out of hand. I'm not going to mention names. It's been a problem. So that's something that gives me concern. But the principles you enunciated I don't disagree with. I don't want every kind of legal aid problem coming on my desk. I want to find the good people who can administer it independently of government but still carrying out our policy in the field and nicely balanced between the expert professional lawyers and the other people who have a keen interest in this from the point of view of the public.

Now you said that last year the JDC didn't do very much. I am not going to give a long speech. Let me tell you a few things they did in police, though.

The sheriffs' programme by September 1, 1975, will release 312 policemen who are doing duty either as court attendants, Crown attorney work and court administration work into the streets. That's pretty good. That was one of the main objectives of this — not only to have a civilian sheriff force but also to release police officers whose job was out in the community so they could do that work. We're doing that. The first class started on March 17, if my memory serves me correctly, at the B.C. police college in Vancouver. We have 17 women constables in recruit training at the B.C. police college at the present time and quite a few of the boys as well. They are getting up to three years, over a period of time, in terms of recruit training. Then we're sending back officers who have been in service and giving them advanced training in places as diverse as Ottawa, Regina, Calgary, Naden and other police training units for advanced training. So that's one of the programmes that would never have happened or been able to happen but for the JDC, as it is called.

We look at the CLEU programme — the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit. It could never have got off the ground if we hadn't this little bit of freedom to manoeuvre and then to report back to the Legislature as we're doing tonight. The CLEU programme has been so successful in terms of its major problem, which is heroin trafficking, that we have forced the price of heroin up to $65 a cap at the present time. I think that's about three times what its value was when the CLEU thing began to bear down with the kind modern research we're bringing to that fight against organized crime.

That's created pressures on the drug community, but I'll tell you another thing it's done: it's taken heroin out of the high schools because it's no longer a cheap easily available thing for the young people of the Province of British Columbia. I don't rest content or smug or satisfied with that kind of a programme because it's a continuous war. But we've made strides in that field, and we're going to make further strides. That's the kind of thing that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member said that we're going to create a B.C. provincial police force. As a province we are entering into pretty difficult negotiations. I might try to summarize very briefly the kind of problem we face, but I don't want to filibuster.

At the present time, under contracts that expire next March 31, we do get a subsidy toward RCMP in the Province of B.C. The federal unit, of course — the immigration and their drug squad - they pay direct and they're not too many people. The provincial force — they pay 50 per cent at the present time. In the municipal field they pay 50 per cent for the first five members of the force, and only 25 per cent thereafter. The cost is rather complicated; it's a formula that works out at about $26,000 per man for the provincial RCMP officer, including his vehicle, his equipment, communication things and uniform. In the municipal case it works out at less than that under the formula.

But this has not been too unfavourable a formula; it's given our municipalities a choice. But now we're running into the crunch, and we see the federal government pulling back on the kind of sharing that it should be doing in these fields. We think that the police in their new role are out there in society not only in crime detection but in crime prevention as well, and diversion out of our jail system and out of our court system. And they are doing a good job with modern training in that direction.

So we don't like the federal government to say: "We're going to pass the criminal laws. You enforce them with your police dollars raised by the taxpayers of B.C. without adequately financed federal contribution. We'll build jails, we'll have parole boards and we'll help with that kind of prosecution. " They've got their own court system going there. That's the wrong end. We think it should be spent on prevention, and we think the federal government should participate much more generously than they are now indicating that they are about to do.

These negotiations are going on with the Hon. Warren Allmand, who, I must say, is a very progressive and enlightened Solicitor-General of Canada. I think he understands the problem. I think he has to sell his colleagues on the importance of having people out in the community before somebody gets trapped into the system by arrest, the court process and the jail system.

The municipalities also have to be considered. We have 12 municipal police forces in the Province of B.C. Then the areas that are under 5,000 population,

[ Page 1368 ]

and the provincial government polices those. About 39 are the RCMP municipal police. There again, the federal government should, we believe, make a contribution towards the municipal police forces. But the choice as to whether you have a municipal force or you have the RCMP contingent should be made at the local level.

I rather support the UBCM proposal that the municipalities should get 25 per cent of their policing costs paid through the federal government across the board. They've submitted that brief; it will have the very serious support, in my opinion, of the provincial government. We will be working not only in terms of the RCMP contract but in the municipal subsidy that is suggested by UBCM as well.

On the right to sue the Crown, I wonder whether my Hon. shadow is not a little bit mixed up on this point. You take the Energy Commission: courts do not decide what the price of, say, natural gas should be in Vanderhoof, but an energy commission makes that decision. Courts do not want that kind of a decision appealed to them. But if the Energy Commission steps out of its boundaries, if it doesn't do its statutory duty or is guilty of unfairness, then it can be sued.

The rentalsman's decisions are another example.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, section 51. The Energy Act has a section on a point of law.

We are not taking anything away from the courts that traditionally they don't want. They are not equipped to handle the determination of a just rent by the Rent Review Commission, the determination of the price of energy by the Energy commission, the determination of whether an eviction should or should not take place by the rentalsman. These are the decisions, it's true, that are taken out of the courts, but they are made by qualified people to make those decisions. I would like to see which of these things you people want to put back in the courts. I wonder how many of those things you want back in the courts.

The right to sue the Crown is there. It is absolute. But there are some tribunals such as the Labour Relations Board, such as the Workers' Compensation Board, that have their own procedures and their own codes of appeal. If you think that that should be taken out and just made a court action, say so; but I don't.

I think the right to sue the Crown, which was delayed in this province for so many years, is something which is now part of the liberties of the people of British Columbia.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I notice, Mr. Chairman, that the vote of the Attorney-General encompasses $115 million, and there are 20-some votes dealing with things ranging from justice planning to prosecution services, parole board, land registry office, fire marshal's office, the Energy Commission, rentalsman, and salary contingencies; and for practical purposes the debate on $115 million has to terminate tonight. I personally am very disappointed and sad to see that the legislative process in this province became demeaned this afternoon.

It is not the fault, Mr. Chairman, of the opposition that administrative shortcomings of this administration — or any administration, for that matter — produce a number of questions which have got to be asked in the public interest. It is not the fault of the opposition that Ministers have not adequately responded in some situations to the debates on their estimates but have treated the questions that have been raised from a position moving from arrogance on one extreme to disdain at the other end of the spectrum.

Similarly, Mr. Chairman, it is not the fault of the opposition that some Ministers have very abjectly refused to answer very valid questions, and also it's not the fault of the opposition that some Members of the government and, indeed, cabinet Ministers have launched into filibusters of defence which have been consuming all the while, I'd say with their full knowledge and design, the time allotted to the questions of administrative performance and policy. I say they did this with full design and knowledge. I think ignorance is a plea that is not open to them because this administration has set the rules of debate. It has changed the rules and, I'm afraid, has shamefully abused the rules.

We have today in this province, as is exemplified not only by the vote of the Attorney-General's office — the $115 million which is increased from $70 to $115 million — but by virtue of the very remarks he made tonight he illustrated very clearly to everyone here that government is more complicated, it is more complex, and that is being compounded daily by virtue of the philosophical direction of this administration and its ever-continuing excursions into the private sector. They are buying companies, equities, land like it was bargain day at Woolworth's. It is also compounded by virtue of the ever-increasing controls and regulations over the society of British Columbia.

On the one hand, we find that this government.... What happened to your flower?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've got the Liberal rose on. We bought the Marguerite. Are you against that?

MR. GARDOM: We find, on the one hand, that the government confounds and complicates the process and, on the other, it abuses and it emasculates

[ Page 1369 ]

the right of a citizen to have his day in court and properly interrogate Ministers of the Crown about the administration and the performance of their departments, which is the biggest business this province has ever known. Surely to goodness, Mr. Chairman, this is a denial of a democratic right. I say, if this is the so-called "new democracy" of the New Democratic Party, that the people of B.C. want none of it. I say to them: get out of it. Be off and be gone and just get away from the helm as soon as you can before the ship is completely on the rocks.

I think the people in this province are clamouring for the right to again exercise their democratic right at the polls. I would say, in the name of all that is fair, please let them have that choice as soon as possible.

Now as the clock is ticking quickly away on $115 million and, I would say, is ringing a degree of knell against the historic concepts of parliamentary accountability in the paucity of time allotted, I want to make some short and unfortunately précis-ed remarks — they've got to be because that has been forced upon us — and raise some questions to the Hon. Attorney-General.

First, I'm not going to say that the Attorney-General did not inherit a portfolio that was in doldrums for about 20 years, because he did. There was some very good response to a number of earlier-stated ideas in the Legislature of this province, and by virtue of that, some very good policies have come into being.

The right to sue the Crown has been talked about tonight. It's a limited right and it is only a limited right. I think there is no question of a doubt, and this is perhaps a pretty technical kind of thing, but the Attorney-General is well aware of it.

On the whole, the right to sue the Crown in the Province of British Columbia has also done away on the other hand — by virtue of the restrictions in specific writs for the abuse of administrative decision and administrative discretion — with denying the checks and balance which has been historic in the concept of law which this province inherited — British law — when it became a province.

It has denied the right of the subject to appeal to the courts for matters that might constitute a denial of natural justice. Those matters have for practical purposes been eliminated in the Province of B.C.

I am glad to see they brought in a little statute a year ago to provide interested judgments, and I think there has been a very, very genuine and a hardworking desire to improve the administration of justice. I concur with the Attorney-General in having a lot of sequestered and very valuable expertise. My compliments to them as well.

But there's no way, Mr. Chairman, that the fountain of justice in this province is really bubbling, because the Attorney-General is being used by this government. I say he's being used by the socialist party. He's being manipulated, whether he knows it or not, and I tend to think that he does know that, but he's powerless to prevent it. It's pretty obvious by his actions that if he did have the power to prevent it, he desires not to.

First, one has to ask as to whether or not the area of the Attorney-General should be confined to Attorney-Generalling. I think it should be. However, he's played a great role in energy, which I say in the ordinary structure of any kind of a contemporary government should be the role of the Minister of Energy, or we could say in this particular structure within the role of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), and I notice he's nodding in acquiescence and agrees thoroughly.

It's absolutely discordant, for the duties and responsibilities of an Attorney-General, to be getting into the other fields that he is. You know, if you liken him to a wine, I would say that he's not a sparkling Macdonald, full of body and satisfying and accomplishing. You have to respect his most genuine charm, but by virtue of the fact that he is being structured by his own party and by his own government, I'm afraid some of that wine is becoming somewhat flat and pedestrian. He's being tied to form, like the cork perhaps was out too long, or in too long — you can pick and choose as to what you might prefer in that regard.

The reason the Attorney-General is being used and manipulated in this manner is probably because of the Premier's lack of faith in his own Minister of Mines, or the Premier's fear of his Minister of Lands and Forests, who is now running Lands and is running Forests and is running Water Resources. For all practical purposes he's running Housing. He's encroaching into Ferries, and he can certainly claim a great deal to do with Municipal Affairs.

So the Attorney-General has become the obvious hedge for the Premier. You know, perhaps in the interests of the general public this is well and good. But the fact is, purely and simply, that the Attorney-General is being manipulated.

You know, he is also being used to become the soft-sell image for the New Democratic Party, with the Gideon on his bed-table, not withstanding the Waffle Manifesto, which he subscribed to, is tucked well into the Book of Revelations underneath.

True, it's a manufactured image and it's well manufactured, and it's very well played by a thespian unparalleled. But the best plans of Burns and men may gang aft agley and one has to ask, Mr. Chairman, what did the Attorney-General trade off? What did he trade off in order to give himself this role or duplicity?

Well, I would say that first of all Dr. Macfaustus let the sunshine law slide well into becoming a luminary for Lucifer. He let department after

[ Page 1370 ]

department of this government encroach into the field of administration of law, and for a few examples we could take the Insurance Corp. of B.C. which for all practical purposes has become a law unto itself. It has set up a bunch of regulatory requirements for drivers in this province which would almost choke a horse.

At one time a driver had to have four pieces of paper in his pocket in order to validate his insurance. He had to have a registration certificate, an owner's certificate, a driver's certificate, and a driver's licence. Fortunately now, one of those is removed — but what a lot of nonsense. Were this under the control of the Department of the Attorney-General, we would never run into a conundrum such as this. The Attorney-General well knows, as a practising lawyer, that these kinds of procedures and these kinds of requirements are true bunkum, but I'd say that he's completely powerless in his position by virtue of the omnipresence — or perhaps the utter lack of vision — of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to do anything about it.

Another example is the rules of the road and the violations of the rules of the road. I would think, again, that this would be the total responsibility of the Department of the Attorney-General, including driver safety and including the department of the Superintendent of Motor-vehicles. They should be within the Department of the Attorney-General, but no, once again, those have been purloined away, and I say that's absolutely wrong.

We've never yet come to grips with the dreadful problem of drinking and driving in this province. Roadway roulette is practised almost constantly in our highways. Deaths are on the increase, accidents are on the increase, and fines have always proven to be a rotten yardstick. Suspensions, true, have helped; make no mistake about that. But that's not enough. We have to have one law for the rich and for the poor and that law has got to be: be sober when driving or keep off the road, or be prepared to face similar consequences. Fine and dandy; truly inform the public of what the consequences may be. Tack it up in every liquor outlet, every bar, every beer parlour, every gas pump in the province. Let people know what the impairment levels are and let them also know what the responsibilities are if they're caught, and if they're caught, sock it to them.

I'd say maintain the suspension system, which is working but unfortunately not working fairly, because what is a suspension to a man who happens to be a professional man or a businessman and he's off the road for six months? He takes a taxi. What is a suspension to a man who happens to be a milkman or a deliveryman and he's off the road for six months? His family could well face welfare. It is not a fair yardstick in itself; nor is the fine a fair yardstick. What is $300 to a person of moderate to good circumstances and what is $300 to a person of low financial circumstances? They are entirely different standards.

So what's the solution? I say some degree of social agency custody for an offender, whatever his economic status in life may be. There should be some compulsory form of social agency custody for these drinking driving violations, and I'm suggesting something like a person riding shotgun with a traffic officer; spending some time in the morgue; spending some time in the hospital during the daylight hours for a given period of time — one or two weeks — be he a top industrialist or be he a labourer or a milk truck driver.

Again, this is an area that should be responsible and within the confines of the Department of the Attorney-General. He's found that he's been encroached upon, in my view, or the department, by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young). I said during her estimates that, in my view, there's absolutely no business this being a separate Ministry. It should be under the aegis of the Department of the Attorney-General or, for goodness sake, if it's not with him, why in heaven's name not give the Liquor Control Board to her? Why is that under the Department of the Attorney-General? You may as well look at either side of the coin. Go one way or go the other.

I'd suggest that if more time could be spent by the New Democratic Party in administering instead of backbiting for political power among themselves, B.C. wouldn't be in at least the same degree of mess that it is now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: So much more could effectively be done, and I stress the word "done." I subscribe to the remarks of the speaker who spoke earlier tonight. So much more could be done as opposed to being studied and gafflebagged and researched by a bunch of long, medium, short and no-hairs from nine to five day after day after day.

Let's just, for example, take a look at crime. Crime is well; it is thriving; it is flourishing in the Province of British Columbia. It has never ever in its history enjoyed such a bonanza. The war on crime; has there been really and truly a war on crime? I doubt that very much. It's more like semi-peace on crime, and what's the net result? We find murders by torture, by crossbow, by acid and gun. We find people who have been tied and trussed, feet and face burned, and executed for pay. They're contract killings. We find murders following the grossest of sadistic sexual perversion, and how many more? How many more unmarked graves are there in the Cariboo, or from Vancouver to Squamish?

We find people riding out to find a policeman and

[ Page 1371 ]

kill him like it was a duck hunt. A headline in the paper today tells of gangs of greasers who consider themselves beyond the law: "Bike Clubs Front for Crime." It's just ghastly. These are newspaper reports in the Province of British Columbia over the past few months: "Half the Time Police Could Not Return;" "B.C. 1,758 Police Before Average;" "Heroin Traffic, An Evil that Won't Go Away." That's admitting defeat. "Drug Squad Mountie Assails Bail Law," "Help For the Child Batterer." What about help for the poor people who have been battered? Obscenity situations increasing constantly. Here's a dreadful one: "Crime Takes Millions in B.C."

These are two of the findings in the first report of the newly formed Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit. Vancouver is the major link in the importing of heroin to North America, and the drug trade is a half-a-billion dollar annual business for organized crime in B.C.

Headlines, the Saturday Province, October 26, 1974: "Crime Fighters Tell Tricks of Heroin Smugglers," and on and on.

"Ottawa Crime, Meeting Has Finger on Vancouver as the Drug Centre."

"Gambling's Corruptive Power is Ever-Present Danger."

"Says City Coroner, More Than 1,000 Drug Deaths in City Since 1970."

Then this great report in the Sun on Friday, October 25, of last year: "Heroin Creates a Vicious Sub-culture. Complex Web Insulates Top Men," and on and on and on. Heroin, Mr. Chairman, and cocaine and speed and drag and phizz-along are doing millions and millions and millions of dollars more business in this province than they have ever done before.

Where is the real action of this government? Where is the preponderance of evidence that these ghastly situations are being effectively fought, checked and contained? Nowhere do we have that evidence! These are all things that were on the increase yesterday and they are on the increase today. I say that the sooner the Attorney-General becomes a freedom fighter in these kinds of causes and forgets the hanky-panky of NDP imagery and energy-wenergy and becomes a full-time Attorney-General in the Province of British Columbia, the better.

Under his administration they have not caught or put out of circulation one really big-time illicit drug operator ever since he came to office — not really one at the top. Everybody knows it's tough, and it is dangerous.

Some of the laws that have been foisted upon us by the Government of Canada don't help one whit, either. Where is the firm and the outspoken, positive attack of the Attorney-General for the Province of British Columbia on the bail reform procedures which have made a mockery out of a lot of our criminal judicial procedures? Once again the Attorney-General has got to make up his mind if he's his own man. Or is he subject to the Minister of welfare overrun, and does he find that he is philosophizing down his neck? Surely to goodness there must be something wrong with the system when we find bail floutees committing offence after offence when they are waiting for trial, which they are often skipping, let alone even attending.

What has happened to our values? It's just wrong! The public can sense that it is wrong. Why can't the politician who has got the responsibility understand that it is wrong and properly cure it?

What really is being effectively done — not planned but done — on an all-out fight to rid Vancouver of the dreadful label of being the heroin city of Canada? What really are the Attorney-General's attack forces and his complete plans of attack against this situation, which is beating him today? You are not winning that fight, Mr. Attorney-General. You just have to open a paper in the province of B.C. any weekend or any weekday and find out if you are winning that fight. That fight is not being won.

I say to the Attorney-General, whose motivation is of the most excellent, you have the power. If there is a dollar shortage you had better make that public and clamour to cure that dollar shortage. If you have any difficulty with your Treasury benches, or if you are having difficulty with other administrations, let the blame fall wherever it may. If the fault is the fault of the Liberal government, let them know it. If the fault is the fault of anybody, let them know it, but for God's sake get to the job and bring in effective measures and effective controls.

I'd like to see the Attorney-General inform the public in the Province of British Columbia exactly which countries are involved in legalized poppy growing and which countries export those, and which countries' laboratories are processing heroin. If the rest of Canada won't, why should not B.C. go ahead and grasp this filthy nettle and boycott the rest of those exports into this province from those countries if they are producing those kinds of things? It doesn't really impress me for your department to get on your high horse about South African wine, which is a piddling little thing compared to something like this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: If you want to start getting involved in an ethical argument, please don't illustrate South African wine as a good ground for an ethical argument on this point. As I said in another debate, you'd find a much better example for keeping out the generators that are put into B.C. Hydro, which are imported from the Soviet Union, than we would keeping out South African wine in the Province of

[ Page 1372 ]

Gun control. As I say, we don't have too much time to talk about these things, unfortunately. This is why I'm appalled at the procedures that are taking place in these estimates.

I differ, with every respect, with the suggestion of someone earlier tonight that these should be going to committee. The things that should be going to committee are bills, and the estimates of the Province of British Columbia should be debated as fully as they have to be in this Legislature, in the open, in front of all the public of B.C.

Gun control. I'd like to know the Attorney-General's position on this, because in my view it is something that is desperately needed. Anything that can cut down on the wanton and illegal use of guns is desirous. Registration can help that. That is no cure. I'm glad to see that I've got support from some of the Hon. Members tonight. Registration is not a cure, but it can be of assistance because it's a means of tracking something down.

The means of licensing dealers is another thing that has to be done, and surely to goodness, a requirement before a person buys a gun. There is none today. Any fool, any idiot, any unbalanced person can go into a store today and purchase a gun, put a bullet in it, and we all know what can follow from that.

We can register cars, we can register mortgages, we can register even bicycles in the larger urban areas, but we don't have a method of registering all firearms. How would this really, truly affect or hamper the freedom of the responsible individual? I suggest not one bit. The responsible individual has nothing to fear from it.

Not for one second am I suggesting the outlawry of firearms, but a more effective method to help check on those people who abuse the use of them.

I was interested to hear the remarks on legal aid. There's no question of a doubt that for years we've been hampered in this province and throughout the civilized world, I suppose, for people to receive proper kinds of legal assistance. True, there's equity and equality before the courts once one is in front of the courts, but there's certainly not equality or equity in climbing the steps to those courts. We should have a province-wide legal aid system, much along the lines of the one that is in the Province of Ontario, whereby people would receive, on proof of need — it's not a giveaway programme — legal assistance for civil matters and for criminal matters as well.

There was a lot of talk in the throne speech about amendments to the expropriation Act. I really commend the Hon. Attorney-General on his foresight and his fast-stepping; we're going to amend an Act that's not even in existence in the Province of B.C., and that shows vision. We've got to give you credit for that.

But it's high time that we cut down the methods of expropriation that have existed in B.C., in which Mr. Justice Thorson, when he was in the Exchequer Court of Canada, once remarked as being the most arbitrary of any country outside of the Soviet Union, and still exist, unfortunately, in the Province of British Columbia. We have to have fair expropriation laws. There was a most excellent study which was entered into by the former administration. You've been sitting on that study for the better part of two and a half years now and it's peculiar to me why that has not been introduced in B.C.

I'm glad to see that you've been working hard on the Liquor Act. It's an archaic statute, and it's high time that it was amended. Everyone, I think, is looking forward to seeing it coming forth in the province this year.

Statute law revisions. It would be nice to know how that is going on — whether you're starting alphabetically or chronologically, and if we move down from one or down from "A," or where that is sort of standing now and if what ....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Hon. Member. You're in your final two minutes.

MR. GARDOM: That's an in-joke. At what point is that at the present time?

There was one item in my final two minutes. It's a small item and I hate to take the time of the House with an item as small as this. But we don't have the time to otherwise discuss these matters, and this is what is so dreadful about this procedure.

I'll give you the illustration, Mr. Attorney-General. We don't have time to have chit-chatting across the floor, so would you please be totally attentive? Would you please give thought to amending the Evidence Act to make it easier for people to prove foreign marriages. As you know, now in matrimonial affairs if there happens to be a marriage outside of the Province of British Columbia it requires the obtaining of the services of a solicitor or consul in another country. It's a very expensive process. It's totally unnecessary. A little amendment to the Evidence Act, which I'm sure Mr. Vickers could put together for you before the evening's even out, would take care of a matter such as that.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Hon. Members for your time tonight. I do

[ Page 1373 ]

gratefully thank you for that, but I say with absolute sincerity that we have made a very bad step in the Province of B.C. in adopting the measures that we have for estimates. We are precluding the public from the opportunity, which is their democratic right, of finding out if the administration is being properly carried forth in their best interests. The public interest today has not been served.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would like to answer briefly the points brought by the Hon. Member. In the case of impaired driving, which unquestionably is a very serious offence and a rising thing in the Province of British Columbia, our figures are higher than they are elsewhere in Canada. We have in the Attorney-General's department, in cooperation with the Drug and Alcohol Commission, 17 impaired drivers' courses going on at the present time throughout different parts of the province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As a condition of probation you have to attend over a four-week period three hours a night.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, that's much better. A fine won't do it, jail won't do it, but send them to school. I think it's good. It's just one of the things we have to look at — and one of the best things.

Now in terms of the heroin in the Province of British Columbia, it is very interesting what's happening. I am not going to talk any more about CLEU because the figures which the Hon. Member gave were prior to about last September when the report came out. We have had great success since that time, and many of these cases are now before the courts. We have people at a higher level in the drug-trafficking business than has ever been the case in Canada before, and that's important. But an interesting thing is happening in southeast Asia at the present time. Without commenting on that very sad military situation, the interesting thing is that around what is the golden triangle where the poppy blows at about 4,000 feet up in the plains in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand, the area of the regular heroin routes down through Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos are being cut off by the armies of the Viet Cong. That's where our heroin comes from. One of the rings we broke in the Bangkok connection ring happened in that way.

It may well be that the military situation in southeast Asia will in time curtail this import to the Province of British Columbia.

That's why our figures are so bad. The heroin isn't coming from Turkey, though that may resume. But when it comes from Turkey, it will be mostly through eastern seaboard ports. It has been coming from southeast Asia, from the golden triangle in the uplands of southeast Asia. It could very well be cut off.

If the communists win, drug traffickers are shot. You can say what you like about them, but we found out that in China, shortly after 1949 when Mao won, drug trafficking, including opium-smoking and some of the lesser things, was just abolished by fiat in the kind of society that can do that kind of thing. We can't do it in the same way. But it was ruthless, and it was rooted out. You know, the farmers are not making the big money, really. They grow the poppies. It's a good cash crop.

AN HON. MEMBER: They give them a choice, quit or a bullet.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, they give them a choice. You can either be above the country or below it. Take your choice. (Laughter.) Anyway, it isn't the farmers.

But there has been so much corruption in southeast Asia that through military planes, through high government officials, through payoffs, it filters down through Bangkok and through the other ports.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it may be, but this is the main source; that bridge area is the main source of poppy-growing in the world, really. It stretches right from that golden triangle through to Turkey. I don't know what the effects will be.

On gun control: the Canadian Senate does some things well because they have some people in there, like Senator Eugene Forsey and Senator Carl Goldenberg, who are as good public servants as Canada has. Under Senator Cameron they are beginning to hold hearings, after they have finished with the drug legislation, on gun control. I would hope that we could make representations from the Province of B.C. to that committee. I would think the committee will be sitting on this question some time in May.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you favour gun control?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. We have handgun control. It is interesting that in the United States most of the homicides — 70 per cent of them — are committed by handguns, because they are totally uncontrolled in the United States. But in Canada we find that about 70 per cent of our homicides are becoming to be the result of rifles, sawed-off shotguns and other weapons. I think that that's a pretty valid reason that control or penalties in respect

[ Page 1374 ]

to the transportation, unauthorized possession and that kind of thing of handguns in Canada has reduced the number of homicides by that means.

If you leave it wide open as they have in the United States, despite the state laws, then you find that the number of homicides by handguns becomes very high indeed. I would hope that we will have — and we've done quite a lot of research on this matter and that research is continuing — something to say to the Senate committee.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I would have to add my brief protest to the way in which the management of estimates is being handled. But, rather than waste time complaining about it, I would prefer to get on with some of the pretty important topics.

I think there are a few issues today in society that concern the man in the street more than the amount of crime and the apparent difficulty in maintaining law and order. Just in recent weeks within this very city where we are debating the Attorney-General's estimates we have had holdups on a frequency that was quite unheard of before. The latest one, which involved abduction of a mother and child and a frantic race through the streets and the brandishing of weapons and the firing of shots in Victoria, was apparently related to a heroin addict.

I think it is all very well to say that we've stepped up the war on heroin problems and that we raised the price and we've caught a few of the bigger fish, but I think society had better recognize right now that this involves an increased desperation on the part of the users, and we see individuals, like the person I have just quoted without mentioning names, subjecting the man in the street to risks which at least he was not subjected to until we reached the point of restriction to access of heroin. I think it is very easy for any of us in this House to stand up and pontificate about the heroin problem, but it seems to me almost, at times, that there is no way you can win.

If one takes what is described as a permissive approach to heroin, one is roundly condemned as being a bleeding heart or a soft heart or some kind of irresponsible citizen. Yet when we set up a special law enforcement unit, and that unit takes some of the actions it has taken, we have to recognize that the price of heroin on the street goes up and we have some desperate acts of violence and the increasing frequency of holdups by heroin addicts desperate to acquire more money to buy the more expensive heroin. So let's not take any very superficial or fanciful approach that all we need are more policemen and more force and more people involved in trying to break the kind of cycle which the Attorney-General mentioned a moment ago.

It's been my impression that there has been interception of larger deliveries of heroin in the last several months. I think, at least from an educational point of view, the October report of the law enforcement unit should be given the widest possible distribution in this province, Mr. Attorney-General. Granted, the report doesn't solve any problems, but it does outline for the average citizen the opportunity to be better acquainted with some of the dimensions of the problem. In some ways I've come to the reluctant conclusion that the Chinese solution is probably the only solution.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's permanent.

MR. WALLACE: It's permanent, as someone says from the back benches, but on the other hand, I doubt if our society is of a nature in 1975 that accepts that solution.

There is no doubt, however, that crime in British Columbia is on the increase. I was interested to read a report of a speech made by the Deputy Attorney-General who, thank goodness, isn't afraid to speak out publicly in any kind of sensitivity as to his civil service position. I think some of the public statements of the Deputy Attorney-General in regard to their candour and their frankness could well be emulated by certain other Deputy Ministers.

On this occasion the Deputy Minister makes the point that too little money was being spent on justice. Although he didn't say so, I'm sure that it was close to his mind that there aren't as many votes in justice as there are in many other departments appealing to a larger segment of the society.

He said: "Justice plays too small a part in budgeting." I think that is rather a courageous statement for a civil servant to make in as sensitive a position as Deputy Attorney-General. He went on to say that in manpower problems B.C. has the highest crime rate and the lowest police ratio in the country, and that this could not be cured overnight.

[Mr. D'Arcy in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: I really don't think that the length of his contract makes a fig of difference to the kind of comments that I've quoted.

On the question of adequate numbers of police, I had a question asked of me a few weeks ago regarding Vancouver, the West End of Vancouver. Perhaps the Attorney-General can confirm or deny this — that, at times in the West End where there are approximately 30,000 people there are as few as two police cars on patrol for considerable lengths of time, which would seem an incredibly small number of police to try and apply the law in an area of such dense population and traffic.

I know that the Attorney-General has been in negotiation with the City of Vancouver to encourage

[ Page 1375 ]

them to increase the police force, which I think has been increased by something in the order of 100. I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us to what degree he considers that more police and more cars are required and to what degree the provincial government is willing to cooperate in assisting both with financing and advice and support generally.

In the picture of violence that we live against, I wonder if the Minister has given any further thought to the subject I raised earlier about the violence in films and, as well, the violence in television which, of course, the Minister has little opportunity to control. I raised the question of a movie earlier on this session — "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." The kind of follow-up which the Attorney-General reported on was somewhat disappointing. He said there had been practically no complaints. I wonder exactly what that means.

I've done some follow-up, Mr. Attorney-General. Apparently, as far as Oak Bay is concerned, the film was very well attended and there were no complaints. I have to ask of society what kind of gratification, or whatever the word might be, people receive from going to see very violent movies. Then these same people get after the MLAs and ask the MLAs to try and do various things to stop violence in the street. It seems to me that there has to be one fantastic contradiction that we have many members of society tripping into movie houses to see the most violent and hideous and disgusting movies and at the same time asking that legislators provide first of all the laws and then the administration to protect the individual from violence.

I think one point is worth mentioning, Mr. Chairman. I recall a few years ago, when we passed the legislation dealing with the film classification director, that one of the elements that was debated was censorship. I recall very clearly that this House was assured that this was not censorship; this was classification. Well, I've got news for this House. This is censorship. I would like to quote the man who does the censoring. His name's Macdonald; I don't know if he's a Scotsman. What with Donald Macdonald, Alex Macdonald and this Macdonald, there's....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Ray Macdonald. There are so many MacDonalds that I'm not surprised the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) gets so fed up with Scotsmen over here.

I don't wish to attack Mr. Macdonald. I want to make it very plain that I'm not attacking him as a person. I'm attacking a ....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm attacking a principle — that we do have censorship. I think we should have one or the other in this province and that we should attempt to restrict the showing of movies and be frank and open in saying that we are restricting movies, but not to hide under the word "classification." Mr. Macdonald was interviewed — this appeared in the Colonist on February 6, an article, an interview — by Mr. Ferry. Part of the interview says: "Mr. Macdonald is no scissors man. He says he'd rather throw a picture out than cut it up." Further down it says that he turned back 14 movies last year.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He didn't turn down Linda Lovelace, though. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Now what's that dividing line...?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: What's the dividing line, Mr. Chairman, between the film which receives a very harsh warning that it's disgusting or violent or brutal or whatever? What is the dividing line that allows the film to be shown, albeit with the warning, and that other kind of film that comes within the 14 that were never shown at all? In the judgment of one single man, a certain film could be shown with the warning that it was bloody and cruel and so on — all the words that we see in the advertising.

The only point I'm trying to make is that the individual filling the role of film classification director is actually a censor if he turns back 14 movies. I think that we should, on that basis, at least decide whether we're going to have censorship or classification, because these other 14 movies should perhaps have been shown with the most extreme kind of description that the director considers suitable. I don't see how you can call this man simply a classification director. Admittedly it's a small percentage of films — 14 movies in a year is a small percentage — but I don't think there's any doubt that that is censorship. If we want censorship — and there's such garbage appearing on the screens, and such violence — then I think that it's time that we looked at the legislation governing movies.

I was very interested to learn just yesterday that the Ontario government has set up a royal commission to look at the whole question of violence on television.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Good. Another commission will be required. We've got development commissions, we've got law reform commissions, we've got I don't know what other commissions.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for West

[ Page 1376 ]

Vancouver-Howe Sound just arrived and he seems to be eager to get into debate, Mr. Chairman.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Why don't you sit down and shut up?

MR. WALLACE: I think I hit a tender spot.

AN HON. MEMBER: He got a free pass to the movies and he wants to talk about it. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: I think I've touched a tender nerve. I've had a little bit of training as to how you treat tender nerves. (Laughter.) You apply cool packs and sometimes sedation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Every time you speak it's sedation. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Well, it's obvious that the Unity Party's really blown now, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: You should know.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, it's these evening sittings, when the time's cut short, Mr. Premier, when you can't debate the Minister's estimates until every point's been covered.

This question of violence is one that is encouraged by the approval of society, that it's all right to show movies and to show violence in extensive amounts on television; yet we complain about it when it plays such an active part in the life of the man in the street, who these days is subject to all kinds of sudden violence.

I wonder if the Attorney-General will first of all comment on the movies and consider whether there is some reason to look at an attempt with the federal government to control violence on television. One of the reasons, I think, that there is such strong support for the last television channel in the greater Victoria area being kept out of the clutches of commercial enterprise is the fact that we're already bombarded and subjected not only to some rather infantile advertising but to a surfeit of films and shows which also emphasize violence. I think the efforts of the government to limit this would be something that the Minister might want to comment upon.

Juvenile delinquency, in the same respect, is often involved with violence. I wonder if the Attorney-General would comment on the Berger report, which states that while the general policy for juvenile delinquency involves community support and participation in the widest sense, there is a percentage of juvenile delinquents who require what Mr. Justice Berger terms "secure accommodation." He added the proviso that this should be subject to review after 30 days and should never exceed 60 days' detention in such a secure accommodation facility, but he did make the point very clear that probation officers and counselors, in trying to handle the larger majority of juvenile delinquents, are often burdened with the relatively small number of so-called hard-core juvenile delinquents, which makes the overall performance of the counselors and probation officers difficult to carry out. I think the section in the report by Mr. Berger on juvenile delinquency is a very accurate appraisal of how the majority of cases should be handled in the community, but how it is absolutely essential that the small percentage of offenders who indulge in violence of one kind or another, in stealing cars, in repeated breaking and entering, and the risk of physical injury to the citizen, should be treated in such facilities as he described as secure accommodation...and whether the Minister has any plans to act on that recommendation in the future.

We've already heard in this House, from up island, of some of the very serious problems they have had in Nanaimo and Duncan. One of the cases, which the Attorney-General investigated, related to a 14-year-old child who, I think, had committed offences into double figures and had escaped from custody many times, and so on, and had caused damage into the thousands of dollars. I wonder if the Attorney-General would comment on the action he plans to take in the near future to deal with this problem.

I wonder if there has been a great deal of discussion about the justice commission. I wonder if the Attorney-General would comment on the fact that the vice-chairman of the commission resigned, reportedly because of frustration. While we haven't the time to discuss some of the comments made by Mr. Cramm, he did say that he felt one answer was to set up a separate department of justice, that the kind of demands made on the whole system under one Minister and Deputy just made it almost impossible for the efficient kind of services to be made available, both in the carrying out of the law and the administration in such areas as courts and other facilities.

He points out that the provincial government should have the courage to completely restructure the rules of procedure to speed the slow process. The rules are made for the public and not for the convenience of judges, according to Mr. Cramm. Now this may be an unfair criticism, but it is the kind of statement which the average citizen reads by a responsible person who has resigned from an important position. I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on his view as to whether a separate Department of Justice would get around some of these problems.

I wonder if the Attorney-General would comment

[ Page 1377 ]

on the other serious problem which has developed by the greater use of sheriffs and deputy sheriffs in conveying prisoners.

MR. FRASER: Barrett's brownies.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sure that the Minister is aware of two very serious incidents, one in Nanaimo and one in Vancouver, where a sheriff was stabbed and where another sheriff was injured by a razor. I gather there was some discussion between the sheriffs and the Attorney-General's department as to whether sheriffs should be armed. There has been no report or public announcement of any kind since that meeting. While it seems like a wise move to provide more sheriffs in order that policemen could more readily fulfill the original purpose of their work, would the Minister care to comment on what has been done to give the sheriffs an added measure of personal protection in the new role which they are filling?

Another subject which has brought a great deal of publicity and criticism is the Attorney-General's habit of introducing a stay of proceedings. I'm referring in particular to the Sanucci case, which we don't have time to discuss in detail. As the Minister knows, this is a case where the Crown brought in a stay of proceedings before even the coroner's inquest had been held in relation to the death of the party concerned. This young women died under unusual circumstances and the coroner's inquest was held. Before the coroner's inquest was even reported upon, the Attorney-General's department ordered a stay of proceedings.

As I say, we don't have time to follow the whole case through tonight, but the very central crux of the matter was that a charge of manslaughter was laid against an individual, and the Crown refused to proceed. Finally, the father of the girl took private action in court and the judge in that case allowed such an action to proceed, whereupon the Attorney-General's department announced that it would take on the prosecution.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, the case is more detailed than that, but basically the Attorney-General's department was left looking somewhat suspect for whatever reason — just sheer internal incompetence or whatever. The fact is that the whole business of stay of proceedings leaves the impression that either the department didn't know what it was doing, or in fact there was some other evidence upon which the department was acting.

I notice that the Attorney-General has said that there is a study underway right now to compare British Columbia with other provinces in regard to the frequency with which the Crown does act in this manner. The figures that were quoted at the time showed that Ontario averaged fewer than one case per 1,000 in which prosecution was stayed, but in British Columbia the frequency averaged 1 for every 75 cases.

MR. FRASER: Shocking! Shocking!

MR. WALLACE: The judge concerned made the point that justice would be seen to be done to a better degree if the case were brought before a court and the Crown prosecutor then asked to demonstrate why, in fact, the case should not proceed. But for the Attorney-General's department to act unilaterally raises some serious problems in the public mind.

The other case that has caused a great deal of concern, Mr. Chairman, regards the manner in which an assault charge against two football players was so badly handled, leaving the public again to wonder to what degree the Attorney-General's department is either incompetent or simply extremely slow to act.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Natural incompetence.

MR. WALLACE: These two football players severely beat a man in Campbell River on May 27, 1974, and one of the players was so successful in avoiding being served with the criminal charges that the papers eventually had to be left with his wife on July 7...

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He's just a broken field runner.

MR. WALLACE:...which is six weeks after the assault. Of course, even after that event, there were considerable delays. The case was adjourned on two or three occasions.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He got penalized for delaying the game.

MR. WALLACE: Finally, it was October 28 before the case came to court. We know that subsequent to that the court, because of a technicality, found that the case could not be proceeded with. Although this football player had already been fined at the civil level, I forget how many thousands of dollars and found guilty in a civil suit, he was subsequently discharged because of a technicality in the action of presumably the Crown prosecutor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is in the final minutes of his allotted speaking time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He got traded to Toronto.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 1378 ]

These two instances — the stay of proceedings on a very serious matter where the charge is manslaughter, and a bungling and fumbling of a prosecution where a man was very severely beaten in a Campbell River hotel and where finally one of the charges was dropped because of a technicality in the way in which the charge was written — leaves the man in the street asking what kind of efficiency we have in the administration of justice in this province. Probably the Attorney-General would like to explain what happened in these two particular instances and perhaps assure us that the likelihood of that happening in the future is not great.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll try to answer as quickly as I can. Since the last case is fresh in the Members' minds, I'll start at the back and work up. Hunsperger and Magrum were charged for the Campbell River incident. There was delay. We have about 80,000 prosecutions that go through this department every year. This was one of them. There was some delay in service of process, unquestionably, but then there were appearances by the lawyer for the accused in the court and then there was a non-appearance — I think it was in October.

MR. WALLACE: October 28.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, October 28. Then the new process was issued to summons Mr. Hunsperger before the court. Our prosecutor at that time, who was a very capable lawyer, did not ask for a bench warrant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That is a matter of discretion. Generally speaking, you don't arrest people. He had appeared by a lawyer already, and he didn't. That was his decision on the spur of the moment. But the funny part about the judge's decision, and the part with which I disagree, with respect, was that when the trial came up the judge refused an amendment because, he said, the citizen should not be harassed. He said this citizen had been harassed because over a period of time there had been the two processes and so forth. In my opinion, the citizen had not been harassed. If he had been harassed, we would have issued a bench warrant on his non-appearance. You know, arrest him when he didn't appear on October 28. So I respectfully disagree with the decision, but that is the court's decision. Mr. Hunsperger then had his Prince George case. That is still before the courts so I don't want to comment.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He was banished to Ontario.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's punishment in itself. So he has had a $6,000 fine, two months' imprisonment and banishment to Ontario. But, anyway, sometimes cases of people which are before the court become prominent. You have to be a little bit careful that he does not suffer in court difficulties because of the prominence of his name in the media. But I think that democracy has to take that chance on occasion. It's happened in this case and I'm not complaining about it.

In Sanucci there never was any evidence, so the RCMP issued a charge very quickly after the incident when the woman died — in strange circumstances, admittedly. When our prosecutors looked at it, in their best considered judgment there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of culpable homicide. That doesn't mean there wasn't culpable homicide. It means that we could not prove culpable homicide beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in view of the medical evidence. So in that case it is the Crown's duty, whatever its feelings may be, not to proceed with the charge.

Our position in that respect has since been adjudicated upon in the Supreme Court of B.C. in the judgment of Mr. Justice Anderson. In the case of Davis and Farnell, the learned judge said: "It must not be forgotten that the Attorney-General and those appointed by him have an important and integral part of play in protecting the subject against undue oppression and expense, while, at the same time, making sure that the administration of justice is not fettered by mere procedural error." He goes on to mention when stays should be entered: "The Attorney-General has a duty and an absolute discretion to enter stays of proceedings where he considers it proper in the interest of justice to do so."

Now where it appears there is not fair evidence to go before a court, then I think I should enter a stay, whatever the feelings might be in a particular case. In this case, however, at the instance of the court, which is probably wrong, the request was made following the coroner's verdict that there be a case, and all the evidence was laid before a judge.

I am not taking umbrage at the fact that we were sort of asked by a judge to proceed with a prosecution. I don't think it's right, because I think there should be a separation. But that suggestion having been made we therefore appointed the best prosecutor we could and laid the best evidence before a preliminary inquiry; and that inquiry found there was no fair case to carry it further. So everything was laid out.

MR. WALLACE: Isn't that the better way to do it?

[ Page 1379 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, for better or worse, I don't charge somebody unless I say there's a prima facie case of a breach of the law. I don't say: "Well, whether you like him or not, I'm going to out that fellow through the court process anyway." I have the initial decision through my prosecutors and the law officers to decide whether he should be put into court at all.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A prima facie case.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I say there has to be a fair case which on a preliminary inquiry would justify a man being committed to a higher court.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Reasonable grounds.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think our decision is much as it would be of a judge listening to evidence at a preliminary inquiry. We don't decide if he is guilty. We decide if there is fair evidence to go to a jury. Now in terms of Sanucci and any other case, I just want to make the statement that there will never be and there has never been any influence from high places or low places or any other places interfering with the administration of justice in my department, and there never will be as long as I hold this office. I make that categorically.

MR. FRASER: Baloney!

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In the case of stays of proceedings, we probably do because a lot of the drug charges are multiple. The average case of a stay of proceedings is a fellow who is charged with .08, he is also charged with impaired and he's convicted of the impaired. Now what are you going to do — convict him of the lesser offence? You stay it or you withdraw it. But I have issued instructions to our Crown prosecutors some time ago that they should explain to the court the reasons for a stay. Do it in open court, and in almost all cases you can do that. You can also say quite frankly to the court that the witness has disappeared.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, there are cases where you want to keep the charge alive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Because a serious social injury has been done and a witness has disappeared. In fact, witnesses have been intimidated, and we try to run down the intimidation. Witnesses have been killed — I kid you not, in terms of drug cases. In that case, do we say we are going to withdraw the charge? No, we think that in some of those cases we should stay it and see if we can put together a case again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, withdraw the other. Don't stay it. Okay?

Now in terms of the Berger report, that's before the government. It's a very good report. It is before the government for policy decisions. I appreciate the lion. Member's interest in the juvenile problem.

In respect to violence on television and in the movies, I am rather of two minds. I am going to consider with interest the inquiry...I think it is Judy LaMarsh of Ontario. If you ban "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," would you make that kind of thing more attractive and unbalanced?

MR. WALLACE: What positive value does that have?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: None. It's a reflection of the cultural barbarism of our time. But you ban it and you give it hidden allure. You're the doctor; why do you ask me that question?

MR. WALLACE: What about the 14 films?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, we didn't have a classification for those 14. The legislative committee sat, it developed classifications for films and there were 14 we couldn't fit in anywhere. So it's still classification but we couldn't put them in — we couldn't find a name for them. Ray Macdonald ran out of adjectives so we wouldn't do anything about them. Fourteen didn't make it at all.

I think the report of Ray Macdonald has been tabled this year in the Legislature — I'll check that out. I know I've seen it. Maybe it has been tabled.

In the Vancouver situation in the case of police, they're over 5,000 population, they have their municipal forces — it's their financial problem. They are getting more police — I think it's 130 they're planning through their council to try and recruit for the next year. We'll help them in the training; we will help them through the sheriff thing by releasing their officers.

I'd like to go into lockups, too. Vancouver city has a terrible lockup situation, but there's a big financial commitment. It cost us $9 million a year to take over the administration of justice and relieve the municipalities last year of that kind of a burden. I have to go to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) before I can say that we really should, under say, the sheriff service, conduct the lockups and

[ Page 1380 ]

relieve the police from that kind of duty. That would help Vancouver enormously. They must have 30 — or how many people? — 50 people tied up in lockup duty. That's no place for a policeman. He should be out in the community engaged in crime prevention work. So we're helping Vancouver very substantially by allowing them to release policemen for police duties. But the increase in their force, until there's a new financial formula, is up to Vancouver city council.

MR. WALLACE: What about the sheriffs?

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, in the case of sheriffs, yes. Where it's a dangerous-custody situation in the discretion of the chief sheriff, arms can be carried. But there are other ways of handling some of those things. Sometimes there are handcuffs necessary. Sometimes there is an additional guard because the prisoner being conveyed is dangerous. Sometimes you break up a group and if you've got two or three people on, say, one drug charge, you don't put them all in one van — you might do it separately with more adequate precautions. They carry arms where necessary — they can in court security but only in situations where it's really necessary.

At one point, I think, my department was accused of ordering 50,000 handguns. Somebody went around the province saying that we had got this order. When we ran into this incident that the Hon. Member mentioned, I said: "How many have we got?" The answer came back: "We've got 12." They were being used primarily in the sheriffs' training classes out at BCIT for training. So I said: "Order another 12. Double the number — but don't order 50,000 under any condition."

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I've been getting up four times this evening and I appreciate your recognizing me. Very briefly, I would like to introduce another subject to the Attorney-General, and that is the statement made by the Minister of immigration to the effect that the response to the Green Paper from Vancouver would seem to indicate that there is more racial tension in Vancouver than anywhere else in Canada. I know that most of the responsibility for dealing with this falls under the responsibility of the police. I know, for example, that....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: No, it doesn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Members. The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: I recognize that neither the Liberals or Social Credit are interested in what happens to anybody but themselves in this House. Nonetheless, most of the racial conflict in the city....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor. I think all the Members know the rules.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: She's running a leadership campaign on provincial time! Shame!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest the Members know the rules; the person speaks in their place. The Hon. Second Member for Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, every time I get up to say anything, the opposition accuses me of conducting a leadership campaign on the House time. I would like to remind them that I'm sitting in this House not because I'm running for leadership but because I represent the constituency of Burrard. I'm not going to allow them to deprive the constituents of Burrard of a representative because of their stupidity.

I would like to talk about the problems the East Indians have been having in the constituency of Burrard and in Vancouver in terms of racial conflict. In every instance those East Indians have had to call upon the police to ask for some kind of protection. What I would like to find out from the Attorney-General is: what kind of training do the police have in terms of dealing with racial conflicts? How many policemen, for example, who are graduating in the class which is graduating on Friday, are themselves of racial or ethnic backgrounds that are non-white?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: This is what I'm trying to find out from the Attorney-General.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is not interested either in the plight of the East Indians or any other immigrant group in this country. But the fact of the matter is that they have a concern too, and in the riding of Burrard there is a very large East Indian population. I'm trying to speak on their behalf and to find out from the Attorney-General what kind of training the police in his department have to deal with the kinds of racial conflicts that they have to

[ Page 1381 ]

come across day after day. That is my first question. The second one has to do with the Landlord and Tenant Act. As he knows, there is a case before the Human Rights Commission now of a woman who has been deprived of housing because she has children. I aim to find out where there is any plan to amend that section of the Landlord and Tenant Act so that it will forbid and prohibit discrimination in terms of rental accommodation on behalf of someone just because they happen to have children.

The third area that the people in Burrard would like some kind of explanation from the Attorney-General has to do with the matter of neighbourhood pubs. Now the second neighbourhood pub in Vancouver has recently been opened in my riding. What we would like to know is: what kind of thinking goes behind the decision that says that those pubs have to be closed down at 11 o'clock? What is the reason for this? Why is it that other drinking places can remain open later, yet these pubs have to be closed at 11 o'clock?

My final statement. I would like to find out from the Attorney-General what kind of changes in legislation are planned by his department in regard to the needs of women this year. Thank you very much.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General: last year at this time there was a discussion in this House about Columbia Cellulose, the share trading, and the unusual trading pattern. The Attorney-General at that time named a committee that would investigate the trading pattern. That committee was named on March 15, and the names on that committee were, as named by the Attorney-General: Bruce Morrison, D.F. Smith, L.G. Smallicombe, A.R. Campbell, all of the British Columbia Securities Commission; and Inspector R.N. Mulloch, Sergeant T.J. Hill, Sergeant F.L. Long, Sergeant J. Dunbar, Sergeant K.E. Salt, and Corporal N. Peter. They were charged with the responsibility, under section 25 of the Securities Act, to make an investigation into any matter relating trading and securities of Columbia Cellulose. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if, indeed, all of these members that were named to that investigation team did in fact participate, or ever met. Can he advise if all members met and if any of those members who were named to that investigation did not participate in the investigation; if in fact the committee held formal meetings or advertised meetings or public meetings, and were witnesses called? Were any witnesses called? Was anyone advised of the investigation? In fact, did any investigation take place at all? In fact, of all of the police members named in this commission, did any or all of them participate in the investigation?

Mr. Attorney-General, I mention this because since that time, March 15, 1974, there has been no announcement or no suggestion as to what ever happened with this committee, if there is a report, if that report will ever be made available to the House and whether or not the Members of this House will have satisfaction over the very serious concerns they have about the unusual trading patterns of Columbia Cellulose before it was purchased, or a large portion of it was purchased, and it became Canadian Cellulose, before the government bought the 79 per cent.

As you will recall, Mr. Attorney-General, in the fall of 1972 the average trading was about 30,000 shares a month. In the spring — January, February, March — of 1973, a time when this company and this negotiation, and the study for the negotiation, were taking place, the trading jumped to 600,000 shares a month and upwards. The price jumped — doubled and tripled — and there were reasons to suspect that perhaps some of the public, or some people, had knowledge before the announcement was made to the general public.

It was a concern of this Legislature, as it was a concern of the people of B.C., that in the takeover or purchase of these shares there may have been leaks or there may have been the possibility for some individuals — some groups of individuals — to take advantage of insider knowledge for their own benefit or the benefit of others with whom they may have shared this knowledge.

At that time we questioned the Attorney-General as to an investigation on when the first negotiations took place; who was charged with the responsibility for the negotiations; whether all people responsible for the negotiations and in the purchase of these shares were covered under an oath of secrecy, normally held by the civil service and by the cabinet, or whether outside advisers were used who were not subject to this oath. We asked these questions because we were concerned.

We also asked — if the government was committed to further purchases in the future — whether from the unusual events surrounding these purchases the Attorney-General could recommend to the government procedures for further purchases that would prevent such an unusual set of circumstances from taking place again and whether, in fact, a set of procedures involving that would guarantee that only those with the oath of secrecy and only those people who were covered under the oath of the civil service would, in fact, be a part of any negotiations in the future, and in fact, outside negotiations would not take place, and, in fact, that maximum security would be maintained so that we wouldn't have the unusual trading pattern that jumped from 30,000 shares a month to 600,000 a month that developed with this investigation.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could advise me if, in fact, all of these people have met, whether

[ Page 1382 ]

indeed the investigation is complete, whether they held meetings and whether the report is prepared for this House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll try to answer briefly the last question and those of the Member for Burrard.

The Col-Cel investigation was very immense. It involved the exchange in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and New York. The total number in the period that we considered — that my officials considered might have been insider trading — the total number of shares involved in trading was 483,000 common — I'm leaving out the odd numbers — and 490,000 preferred. There were 8,000 separate transactions, and these had to be first run down. Then they had to be checked with a list of people who could possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be insiders or having special information. They came up with a list of 171 names.

The staff of my department to date have spent 350 hours on this matter. Now it's important, sure. This was a major resource purchase involving a big area of the Province of B.C. So I'm not saying we're resenting. I'm saying we need two more chartered accountants in the securities branch just to work on this. We've had two doing it. The team doesn't necessarily meet under the Securities Act investigation. They're entrusted with this investigation, but they don't necessarily meet. It isn't completed but, in terms of this investigation, we found nothing suspicious. This is the report.

I'd be glad to talk to the Leader of the Opposition and other Members about the kind of work involved in this inquiry and the kind of thing we did in Dunhill, although in the Dunhill thing, which was a subject of debate, because there was a court case we nevertheless, to show we had nothing to hide, sent a copy of each to the two lawyers — one on each side of that case. That was a long time ago. In this one, I can't say it's completed. I say we're suffering under a staggering work load....

MR. BENNETT: Did all of those people participate in the investigation — all the people you named?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll answer that. I've got it on the record and we'll give you a reply to that as to whether they all participated. I can't answer that now.

Now in answer to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard: in terms of racial tension in Vancouver, that's partly why we started the B.C. police college, you know. There the recruits are taking courses in criminology and social studies and the ethnic population of the Province of B.C. and that kind of thing. So when we go into areas where there is this kind of problem, with this front-line social service, the only ones there seven days a week, 24 hours a day, are the police services. We want them well trained in human relationships and crime prevention and detection.

I think they are doing a good job. This is the kind of training in which we are engaged.

In terms of some landlords' refusal to rent to children, I think it should properly be handled not as an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act, but under the Human Rights Commission.

In terms of the neighbourhood pubs closing at 11 o'clock — unless my information is not totally up to date, by last count we had 14 neighbourhood pubs in the Province of British Columbia under the general licence. If any Hon. Members want the addresses and the names of those 14, I'll be glad to get .... Don't tell me it's 16! Well, there you go, you see, I'm out of touch. I'm quite out of touch. I imagine that one on 4th Avenue was licensed in the meantime. We have 21 applications pending. We now have 16 neighbourhood pubs.

I was ready to go with my estimates two weeks ago and then I don't know what happened — since that time, my figure of 14 has become 16.

I think that answers the questions that have been asked.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why do they close at 11 o'clock? Because the concept of the neighbourhood pub was a cozy, quiet place in a neighbourhood where people go to sleep early at night and that kind of thing. However, in terms of new liquor legislation that is coming down, and new regulations, we are looking at that question too. We want a chance to look at the economics. If 11 just does not make the thing economically feasible, we may have to look at that closing hour.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves the House rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 1383 ]

NAYS —

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): When you report to the Speaker, would you be good enough to inform him that a division took place on whether the committee should rise and report progress, and ask leave to have that division recorded in the Journals?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again, and I am to report that a division took place on this vote, and they wish it recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 11:07 p.m.