[ Page 1303 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Community of Property Act (Bill 39) Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 1303

Statement

Increase in ferry rates. Hon. Mr. Davis — 1303

Mr. King — 1304

Mr. Gibson — 1304

Mr. Wallace — 1305

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Job losses due to ferry fare increases. Mr. King — 1306

Fringe benefits for ferry employees. Mr. Wallace — 1306

B.C. Hydro proposal to Seattle City Light. Mr. Gibson — 1306

Effect of ferry rate increases on tourist industry. Mr. Cocke — 1306

NDP advice to ferry union. Mr. Bawlf — 1307

Cost of living increases to higher ferry rates. Mr. Lockstead — 1307

Effect of increased ferry rates on Vancouver Island agriculture. Mrs. Wallace — 1308

Discussions with other carriers on increased rates. Mr. Lea — 1308

Notice of increased rates by CPR. Mr. Lauk — 1308

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Gibson — 1308

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1309

Mr. Wallace — 1309

Mr. Speaker — 1310

Mr. King — 1311

Mr. Speaker — 1311

Statement

Situation at Vancouver General Hospital. Hon. Mr. Williams — 1311

Mr. King — 1312

Mr. Gibson — 1312

Mr. Wallace — 1313

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 10.

Mr. Macdonald — 1315

Mrs. Wallace — 1316

Mrs. Jordan — 1317

Ms. Brown — 1318

Mrs. Jordan — 1323

Ms. Sanford — 1324

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1326

Mr. Rogers — 1327

Mr. Lauk — 1328

Mr. Chabot — 1332

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1333

Mr. Loewen — 1334

Mr. Wallace — 1335

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1336

Mr. Wallace — 1337

Point of order

Clarification of format for ministerial statements. Mr. Nicolson — 1338

Mr. Speaker — 1338

Appendix — 1339

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a group of students from the high school in Summerland, in the heart of the Okanagan in that famous constituency of South Okanagan. These students are chaperoned by their principal, Mr. Robert Tait, who in turn is chaperond by his wife, Mrs. Joanne Tait. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a group of students who have come all the way from Oak Bay to watch the Legislature in action. I'd like the House to welcome students from Glenlyon School for Boys.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, we have with us in the gallery today from the constituency of Omineca Mr. and Mrs. John Kasdorf. I had the pleasure of being associated with Mr. Kasdorf for many years in the forest industry in the north. I would ask that the House join me in welcoming them

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the priest who led us in prayers this afternoon is a constituent, the Reverend Bill Mundy, very well known in Saanich and the Islands and greater Victoria. His church is St. Peter's, Lakehill. Would the House welcome him?

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Bill Price, who is visiting from Omineca, in the gallery today,

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, in the House today is a prominent lawyer from my constituency of Kamloops, and also the president of the Social Credit Party constituency organization in Kamloops, Mr. David Rogers. I ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to three executive members of the Fraser Valley Regional Library, Mrs. Pretty, Mr. Overand and Mr. Perry, and I request the House to give them a welcome, please.

Introduction of bills.

COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 39, Community of Property Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INCREASE IN FERRY RATES

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I am announcing today that most British Columbia ferry rates will double on June 1, 1976. Hon. members should note, however, that the so-called increase in income will not be enough to cover all B.C. ferry costs. An annual subsidy in the order of $25 million will be necessary to bridge the continuing gap between income and expenses.

Last year users paid about one-third of the total capital and operating costs of B.C. Ferries. After June 1, with the doubling of the fares, they will be paying roughly two-thirds. The remaining one-third is a continuing subsidy. It will be paid by taxpayers all over the province and regardless of their level of income. So it puts the users of the B.C. ferries on the same basis as those who use our toll-free highways and roads in B.C.

Specifically, on the main crossings from the lower mainland to Vancouver Island, the charge for individual drivers and passengers will rise from $2 to $4; for vehicles under 6 ft. 5 in. the increase will be from $5 to $10.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Does that take in Cadillacs?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Senior citizens and children five and under will travel free from now on; children six to 14 years of age and those who are permanently handicapped will travel at half fare. Groups of 25 or more travelling on foot or in a bus will receive a discount of 25 per cent. Trailers and other over-height vehicles will be in a new category. They will pay $15 on the main routes. Bicycles will continue to be free; motorcycles, on the other hand, will face a doubling in rates on most routes. Commercial vehicles like large trailer trucks will pay competitive rates. These are roughly one-third above those presently charged by B.C. Ferries.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline the fact that wage rates have trebled and fuel costs have more than quadrupled since 1960 when B.C. Ferries first began operating, using the

[ Page 1304 ]

rates that are in effect now. This approximate doubling in fares should be judged, then, in the context of rising costs. We are determined to bring future cost increases under control. If we can do this, we will be able to maintain our ferry rates at or about the levels which I am announcing today. Of course, we will continue to press the federal government for a contribution to the B.C. ferry subsidy.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition regrets the statement that has just been made by the Minister of Transport and Communications. The doubling of ferry fares at this particular time, in conjunction with other increases that have been already introduced by the government, is in our view extremely punitive and certainly adds to the high cost of living that the citizens of British Columbia are labouring under at the moment. The announced policy, Mr. Speaker, in the view of the official opposition, flies directly in the face of the fight on inflation which the provincial government and the federal government are asking the citizens of this nation and this province to cooperate in. I think it's extremely regrettable and reprehensible that these kinds of punitive rates have been visited upon the people of British Columbia at this time, Mr. Speaker.

I note that the one positive element of the programme — and it's only marginally positive — is the announcement of free passage for senior citizens as pedestrians. But I note, Mr. Speaker, that senior citizens who are operating automobiles will be subject to the same doubling of rates incident to their vehicle as any other citizen in the province. So the benefits there, indeed, are very marginal.

I note also; Mr. Speaker, that the cost of two Volkswagens will be double the cost of one Cadillac, despite the fact that the space occupied by two Volkswagens is approximately the same as that occupied by a Cadillac. I think it's regrettable that the government did not move to direct some of the burden against the rich as well as directing it all against the poor, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor on his statement.

MR. KING: I decry in the strongest possible terms, Mr. Speaker, the threat to employment that is generated as, a result of this new policy by the government, the threat to employment directly to those employees employed in the ferry....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the purpose of a reply to a statement by a minister....

MR. LEA: ...is to agree or shut up. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member for Prince Rupert withdraw that remark — an unqualified withdrawal! I heard the remark.

MR. LEA: Just before I do, Mr. Speaker — and I'm quite willing to, if it's unparliamentary — what inference do you draw from it?

MR. SPEAKER: You do not have possession of the floor. You throw it out as an insinuation which must be withdrawn.

MR. LEA: I withdraw for speaking when I didn't have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: As I was about to say, hon. Leader of the Opposition, it's not a matter of now engaging in a full-scale debate, as you properly know; it's a matter of replying to the statement made by the minister. I'm prepared to allow a certain amount of latitude because it is difficult at times to determine what is allowable in a situation like this and what is not, but I suggest to you that you cannot become argumentative in the remarks which you make at this time. There'll be a proper time and period for that to happen.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'll just point out that the minister in making his statement attempted to provide justification for the increases, which I don't believe is customary either. I'm going to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to take advantage of your good grace in allowing some flexibility on this very important matter.

I just want to point out that the opposition is genuinely, extremely concerned regarding the threat to those people involved in the ferry service. We are extremely concerned with respect to the threat to the employment of people in the private sector on Vancouver Island as a result of what will undoubtedly be a spectacular increase in freight costs. It will mean possible curtailment of small industry on the Island.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are extremely concerned and can only categorize the rate increases as absolutely punitive when they certainly threaten one of the basic industries of the Vancouver Island area, namely the tourist industry, which undoubtedly and as a direct consequence of these unconscionable increases can only suffer in very, very dramatic form.

The people of all Vancouver Island will be the losers over the coming year, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, responding to the minister's statement, I appreciate the need for more revenue for the ferry system, but I would suggest that the rate increases we

[ Page 1305 ]

have today are pretty rough and the details are importantly incorrect.

The minister is well aware, I think, that the capacity on the ferry system is what costs the money — the enormous underutilization of the system in the winter, or the overutilization in the summer, whichever way you might want to look at it. The people who travel on the system all year around are the ones who provide the bread and butter — the ongoing revenue of the system. Therefore it seems to me that either there should have been a system of peak period pricing introduced, or else a continuation and extension of the commuter ticket system which had been evolved on some routes.

Secondly, I very much deplore the increase in passenger prices. We should be trying to encourage people to travel as foot passengers, get into car pools and so on, rather than simply raising those prices along with everything else.

Finally, I naturally support the minister in his continuing quest for a federal subsidy for this system. I want to suggest a very specific way and means of doing that. The fact is that the citizens of British Columbia naturally subsidize every car that goes across there, so every British Columbia licence plate has that privilege but every licence plate that goes on that system without a British Columbia licence plate hasn't contributed to the subsidy, as they should be doing, through the federal government. Therefore what the minister should do is institute a little system whereby we charge out-of-British-Columbia licence plates the extra for the full cost, give them a little brochure and say we're sorry. Until the federal government sees fit to pay this proper subsidy to British Columbia which they pay to other parts of the country, we have to charge them the extra that's already being charged to British Columbia. That might bring them around fairly quickly, Mr. Minister.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of federal subsidy, which is really the reason why the problem is so acute, I acknowledge and support the concept that the rest of the province can't go on subsidizing the ferries to this present degree. The purpose of an increase, I thought, was to provide a disincentive to cars and an incentive to people. I'm not sure that that has been achieved. Regardless of the amount of diminished use by motor vehicles, I can certainly see a drastic need for more parking at terminal facilities if there is to be any reduction in the number of cars going on the ferry. That involves expenditure, and perhaps in debate we'll get into that later.

I think it's regrettable also that the minister has made no mention in his statement of one of the other serious problems, namely the fact that all the workers, it seems, are working overtime, and, as a result, this has led to another crisis in the system, which is not referrable to debate today. But if the minister had suggested making some serious attempt to get back to a regular working day for each member who's employed by the ferry system, this would have reduced the cost of operation and would also help the unemployment that is a problem.

I feel, as the Liberal leader does, that there should be some mechanism to provide some measure of preference to Vancouver Island residents. As the official opposition have pointed out, it will be an economic hardship and there will be real danger that the tourist season will be affected, and a great deal of our economy on this island depends on tourism.

The good point, of course, is free travel for senior citizens, but I think that in face of inflation and high unemployment this summer the minister might have given consideration to students, to give either a reduced fare or a free fare as an acknowledgement of their particular situation at this time.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: when the official Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) was making his reply to the statement made by the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), you interrupted him at one point in order to take to task the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) with respect to a comment he made across the House. His comment related to, "You either agree or you shut up," if I recall the words. I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that at that point the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) shouted back across the floor "Well then, shut up!" I feel that you should also ask for a retraction from the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Comox, I must say to you that I did not hear such a remark, but if that is in fact the case, that that remark went across the floor of the House, would the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services withdraw any such imputation?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I'll make it easier for you and plead guilty. However, my remark was based on the propriety of the hon. member's remark; you've already ruled that it was not a proper remark. However, rather than get in a legal hassle, I will withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Minister.

Oral questions.

[ Page 1306 ]

JOB LOSSES DUE TO
FERRY FARE INCREASES

MR. KING: A question to the Minister of Labour: I would like to ask whether he of his own volition, or at the request of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), has embarked on a study to assess the possible impact of job loss to the Ferry Authority employees as a result of the announced rate increases and the announced cut-back in staff, and also whether he has conducted any research analysis on the impact of job loss in the private sector as a result of the ferry rate increases.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): The answer is no.

MR. KING: Completely ad hoc, eh!

FRINGE BENEFITS FOR FERRY EMPLOYEES

MR. WALLACE: I would also like to ask the Minister of Transport and Communications a question with regard to B.C. Ferry salaries and fringe benefits. Is the reported statement of the minister correct, quoted over the weekend, that fringe benefits for ferry employees include free passage for their families on the ferries and reduced menu prices for food?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, that is a factual statement.

MR. WALLACE: Could I also ask if retired civil servants continue to hold free passes on the ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the conditions of employment under the current agreements.

MR. WALLACE: Could I finally ask if former cabinet ministers continue to hold passes on the ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, but I'll check as to the fact.

B.C. HYDRO PROPOSAL TO
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications in his capacity of being responsible for B.C. Hydro. Could the minister tell us whether it is correct that B.C. Hydro is currently preparing a formal proposal to Seattle City Light on the matter of the Skagit Valley? Is it also correct that it has been informally communicated to that group that the new government thinks the proposal of the former government was not fair?

HON. MR. DAVIS: As to the first part of that question, Mr. Speaker, B.C. Hydro is advising ministers of this government in respect to a possible approach to Seattle City Light, but B.C. Hydro itself is not directly involved in any negotiation with that utility in respect to the Skagit River.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: the minister didn't comment on the second part of my question, but I would like to go on and ask him if he would give this House a firm policy undertaking of the government that the Skagit will not be flooded under any circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the question you have just posed to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications is certainly one of broad policy of the government, and the minister certainly is not obligated to reply to that question.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that he's not obligated, Mr. Speaker; I just wanted to give him that opportunity.

EFFECT OF FERRY RATE
INCREASES ON TOURIST INDUSTRY

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Travel Industry, also Provincial Secretary. I'd like to ask the Minister of Travel Industry whether or not her department, during the discussions around ferry rate increases, has done any research on what these increases will do to the travel industry and the secondary industries around the travel industry on Vancouver Island.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for New Westminster, I would like to share with him some of the statistics that have come to the government by way of planning to increase the ferry service rates and the effect that it would have on the travel industry in this province.

First of all, between 1960 and 1972 the ferry service in this province showed in the aggregate an $18 million profit, and from 1972 until March of this year it showed a $72.4 million loss. In respect to that incredible loss situation, it has been necessary for the minister to announce rate increases today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please relate your reply to the question that was asked?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes. The member is

[ Page 1307 ]

requesting information regarding the travel industry impact.

From the travel industry represented in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria, from the Hotels Association, which is very much affected, and from various other travel industries people, I have had representation which showed conclusively that the last strike that was...

MR. KING: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...undertaken by the ferry service so influenced the travel industry that they are still suffering today.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, that is an example of how the travel industry is very much affected. I would like further to say that the effect of this....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As the minister knows, in question period you cannot expand beyond the question that was raised to you, Hon. Minister. Now would you please confine your reply to the question?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster can be assured that the Travel Industry department does have statistics on the impact.

MR. COCKE: Since the answer to this question was a simple no, obviously no research has been done. I would wonder, Mr. Speaker, why it was that the Minister of Travel Industry didn't stand up and give us highway statistics as to what it costs the province in subsidy.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Provincial Secretary. Is she aware that between the years 1963 and 1966, under the previous Social Credit government, there were $107 million from consolidated revenue that went in as a subsidy to B.C. ferries? Were you aware of that, Madam Minister?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't know whether that is a proper question, but I would be pleased to check your figures, Mr. Member.

NDP ADVICE TO FERRY UNION

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Leader of the Opposition. Following a meeting between the representative of the B.C. Government Employees' Union — Mr. Thornber — and the opposition caucus, is it true that the opposition caucus advised the ferry union to run advertisements throughout North America saying that the B.C. ferries are unsafe?

MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. Leader of the Opposition replies, as long as the question is directed to the Leader of the Opposition or any other party leader in the House, with respect to their responsibilities as leader, it is in order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question. No, that is absolutely, patently untrue. Mr. Speaker, we are concerned in the official opposition about the tourist industry in this province, and certainly would do nothing to injure that industry. It is the province's second-largest industry, and that is why we are so extremely concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the present exorbitant, punitive, unconscionable rate increase by that government is going to do a more adequate job, a more devastating job, of curtailing and injuring the tourist industry than anything negotiations with the trade union may do.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I might ask then if the Leader of the Opposition would be planning to make a statement to clarify the earlier, apparently erroneous statements reported in the newspapers in this city to this effect.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any statement in the newspapers to that effect, and I'm hardly responsible for what the newspaper people write. If the member would care to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: If the member would care to provide me with a copy of the article, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I want to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition is never reticent in terms of articulating our position and our policy in this House, as I have done on this occasion and as we have done in the past. But if the member would like to draw it to my attention I'll certainly answer the question for him, without even taking it as notice, as the ministers in his own government do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES
DUE TO HIGHER FERRY RATES

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Consumer

[ Page 1308 ]

Services. I would like to ask the minister if he has had any studies done to find out how much the cost of living will be increased to residents of Vancouver Island and theSun shine Coast due to the announced increase in commercial rates on the B.C. Ferries, and if this is his idea of "another kick in the rear to the people of this province."

HON. MR. MAIR: In answer to the member, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not an answer.

EFFECT OF INCREASED FERRY RATES
ON VANCOUVER ISLAND AGRICULTURE

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, and I would ask for an answer, yes or no. Has his department undertaken any studies to ascertain the effect of the increased ferry freight rates on the agricultural community of Vancouver Island?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I've been informed by the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis), in my concern about the agricultural industry on Vancouver Island, that the majority of merchandise which travels to and from the Island is by commercial, other than the B.C. Ferries. Very little of the truck transport is actually carried by the ferries, and it will have very, very little effect on the great agricultural industry.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you want to go a little further, it will probably have very little effect on the actual cost of any foodstuffs, whether it be agricultural or not, because the bulk is carried by other carriers.

MRS. WALLACE: A supplemental. I would ask the minister what alternate carriers he is speaking about, and whether or not he is aware that their rates are also going to be increased as a result of the B.C. Ferries increase.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the member that I appreciate her questions. I am very concerned about it, but if she did a little study she would realize that the bulk of cargo between the mainland and Vancouver Island is by train and barge and that our new rates will still be below those charged by the CPR, for instance.

I was very concerned about this. We checked it out, and I was happy to be able to report to the House that it won't have any great effect.

DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER
CARRIERS ON INCREASED RATES

MR. LEA: Supplementary question to the Premier: has the government had any talks with CPR and the commercial carriers, and have they informed you of putting their rates up, after these B.C. Ferry rates? Have you had discussions with CPR or other commercial carriers about their rates going up?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. First of all, that is not a supplemental question if it is directed to another minister. But I will take it as a question by itself,

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Prince Rupert: no, the government does not fix prices with private concerns; at least, the new government doesn't. We have had no discussions with the CPR or any other carrier. The rates, as presented by the Minister of Transport, were done strictly on a basis of economics and government subsidy which, in effect, is calculated similarly to the subsidy that goes to all highways in British Columbia, to keep the ferries on the same subsidy basis as major transportation routes in the province.

This government had never even entertained the idea that it should, in fact, try and discuss rates with private carriers, and we never will.

NOTICE OF INCREASED RATES BY CPR

MR, G.V. LAUX (Vancouver Centre): To the Premier: has he, or his government, received any notice from CPR that their rates for commercial transport to the Island will be increased?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the second member for Vancouver Centre: I have not been contacted or advised, but you might direct your question to the Minister of Transport and Communications, under whose department comes the agency that controls rate applications in the province.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. The question period was interrupted by the bell. The question period is now over.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the first annual report of the Legal Services Commission.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to ask leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of definite public importance. I have reason to believe that the hon. Conservative leader would have suggested the same basic matter had he been recognized at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish to

[ Page 1309 ]

yield to the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: No, I just wanted to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the idea had double front-bench merit.

If I may briefly state the matter: whereas difficulties concerning the employment of summer students by the government — difficulties between individual government agencies and with the B.C. Government Employees' Union — threaten the employment prospects of several thousand students, and whereas other difficulties between the hospitals and hospital workers of British Columbia are causing immediate and serious disruption in health services, this House should immediately debate the general subject matter of public sector employment, with particular emphasis to the enumerated areas and the activities of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in this regard.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. One moment, please.

MR. GIBSON: I would be prepared to speak to the question of urgency if Your Honour wishes.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please resume your seat for a few moments, Hon. Member?

Hon. members, in replying to the matter raised by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, with respect to placing before the House a motion to debate a matter of urgent public importance under standing order 35, in reading the statement which you prepared and handed to me, Hon. Member, I would draw your attention to several matters.

First of all, you contemplate several propositions within the one statement. You might argue that, even though you have several propositions which would ordinarily rule your request out of order, they can constitute the one subject because, in fact, they do deal with the matter of unemployment. But in dealing with that, and assuming that even though there are several subject matters within the one statement and that you are speaking rather in broad terms about unemployment, I would draw to your attention that it is a matter of unemployment, which is one of a continuing nature which has been with us. One moment, please.

I would also draw your attention to the fact that you suggest that because of these problems there is a possibility of disruption of health services. I would therefore also draw to your attention a statement that was made in an earlier meeting of this Legislature, but not many days ago, by the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon., Mr. Williams) indicating that this whole matter and the disruption of services, if that were to take place, would be dealt with according to the statutes and the law of this province.

Finally, I would draw to your attention page 371 of Sir Erskine May, the 16th edition, and suggest to you that a motion has been refused when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly or in time. There is no question about the fact that an opportunity will occur whenever we debate the estimates of the minister involved. While I cannot anticipate the day that that will be raised on the floor of the House, it will be, as suggested by Sir Erskine May, a matter which will properly be under discussion and may be raised for debate when those estimates are before the members of this House.

I must say to you now that in taking all of these matters into consideration I cannot see where your motion qualifies for a matter of urgent public debate as provided for under standing order 35 of this House. Therefore I must rule your motion out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and without wishing to question Your Honour's ruling, I would like to suggest a possible way out of this, because, in fact, patients are being moved out of Vancouver General Hospital today and students are reporting for work without knowing what they are going to be paid or if they have a job. The way out, I would suggest, is to suggest to the government House Leader (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) that we might perhaps immediately call the estimates of the Minister of Labour and on which ministerial vote we could talk about all of these things to the satisfaction of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The order of business, as you know, is a matter that the House Leader decides. We have a minister's estimates before the House....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not for the Speaker to determine the order of business or the minister's estimates that will be called before this House on any particular occasion. Even at that, I have given you my reasons for ruling your particular motion out of order, and I have so ruled, Hon. Member.

MR. GIBSON: What does the government say?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your clarification because under standing order 35, as you are probably well aware, 6(a) states that no more than one such motion can be made at the same sitting. While I wish very much to adhere to the rules

[ Page 1310 ]

of the House, my intended material was more specifically directed towards the problems of the students in the province.

Hopefully, I had not included propositions in my statement. According to standing order 35, paragraph 1, the member simply states the matter and asks leave to move a motion — not actually asking to move the motion, but simply asking leave of the House, on the basis of the material in the statement, to then ask to move a motion. So actually the preliminary matter that has to be decided by Mr. Speaker, according to subsection 1 of standing order 35, is to consider the content of the material presented by the member in asking leave to move the motion, not to actually move the motion....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I think there is a general misunderstanding among the hon. members of this House as to the procedure that we take and the procedure that must be observed by the Speaker of the House in determining whether a motion is in order or out of order.

The procedure is that the member wishing to move a motion states the matter and hands a statement of that to the Speaker. The written statement is then looked at by the Speaker. If the Speaker thinks it is in order, then he proceeds to ask leave of the House. But in this case, Hon. Member, as has happened in many cases in the past and probably will in the future, I determine, on the basis of the evidence before me, whether I consider this to be a matter of urgent public importance for debate at this particular time.

I have done exactly as I should do, as I understand my role in this House. I've determined whether the matter was in order to be debated; I've suggested to the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) why it was not in order; and I so ruled. Beyond that point, there is no reason or no way in which I see the House should ask for leave.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Now if you are, in fact, dealing with different subject matter, then I must listen to your request for an emergency debate under section 35 of our standing orders. If, however, you are dealing with the same subject matter as we have already dealt with, then it is clearly out of order, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have no wish to fight or to try and get around the rules of the House. I am saying that the statement I had prepared was more specific and related to the fact that while, as you've pointed out, unemployment is an ongoing problem, the urgency of this particular situation is that the people concerned have a strictly limited number of weeks in which they can work in the year. My statement touches upon this very central aspect of the matter, and I would ask if I might....

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, Hon. Member, in order to clarify it and for me to listen to the statement to determine whether it's on the same subject matter or not, you would read the statement.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public business, In accordance with standing order 35, I wish to state the issue. The matter concerns phase two of the student employment programme. Reports over the weekend and inquiries made by my office confirm that there is an impasse over the hiring of students for summer employment between the government and the BCGEU.

The Victoria Times on Friday afternoon reported the issue as a major story on the front page, quoting the union secretary that the union has rejected government employment proposals for students in some jobs at rates of pay below the level stipulated in the collective agreement. My inquiries this morning confirm the accuracy of these statements. The evidence shows that, indeed, an impasse has been reached with severe and immediate impact on many students seeking government employment.

According to Canada Manpower, in Victoria alone 5,000 young people will apply for 1,400 jobs. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), in a press release of April 21, confirmed that termination of the federal Opportunities For Youth programme has eliminated 2,700 student jobs this summer. In the same release, the minister predicted an unemployment rate among students in excess of 18 per cent this summer.

The provincial government, the minister stated, would be providing jobs for at least 4,600 students in various departments of government, and he said that the B.C. government is the largest single employer in the province.

These facts, together with the impasse over the rates for summer employment for students, Mr. Speaker, emphasize the urgent nature of the crisis facing many students in the province, particularly those who were expecting to return to government jobs which they have filled during previous summers.

Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence and students have a limited number of weeks in which to earn enough money to finance their return to university in September. It is for these clearly defined and urgently pressing reasons that I seek leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in dealing with the matter just raised by the hon. member for Oak Bay, with respect, I must say to you that it does deal

[ Page 1311 ]

with relatively the same subject matter as the previous motion dealt with. I have given you my reasons for ruling the motion out of order on a matter of public urgency at this time. I therefore must apply the same rule evenly with other motions on the same matter. I must suggest to you now that your motion is as much out of order as the other one was which I have so ruled upon.

MR. KING: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I may be allowed to ask for the unanimous leave of the House, as I understand that is always in order, to discuss the matter raised by the Conservative leader.

MR. SPEAKER: There's nothing to prevent a member of the House from asking for unanimous leave to discuss a matter. You're asking that that question be put?

MR. KING: Yes.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the two matters which were raised by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano and the member for Oak Bay....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to make a statement. May I have leave to make a statement?

Leave not granted.

MR. KING: On a point of order, am I to assume, then, that unanimous leave of the House was granted to discuss this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: No, unanimous leave was denied. I have no idea or no way of knowing, Hon. Leader of the Opposition, what the Minister of Labour was about to raise in the matter of business of this House until he stood on his feet. If you will recall, when he stood on his feet and suggested that he was raising the same matter, I was about to tell him it couldn't be raised at this particular time without leave.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now we have dealt with the matter of debating the matter with leave. Is the hon. minister asking leave to make a statement?

MR. KING: He was denied it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was denied leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed with the statement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the situation that obtains at Vancouver General Hospital, while I would appreciate the members' urgency to debate the matter, I think I am sure that on reconsideration they would recognize the sensitivity that surrounds that particular dispute would be such that it would be inappropriately served by having any debate in this House.

I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that as of Friday of last week I was advised by telegram from the Vancouver General Hospital of its receipt of strike notice, and, based upon the contingency plans of that hospital, certain steps were then put into motion: admissions to the hospital were to be stopped; outpatient service was closed; evacuation of patients was planned to reduce the inpatient population to 450 within 72 hours, the then population of the hospital being approximately 1,400, and to a minimum within seven days. Only life-saving services would be maintained until such time as those patients could be transferred safely.

As a result of actions which I announced to this House last week, notice to the Labour Relations Board for the purpose of designating essential service was given to all parties late Thursday afternoon, April 20. Initial preparatory meetings were held on Friday morning and lengthy hearings were held with the board all day Saturday and Sunday.

As a result, the following decisions have been made by the Labour Relations Board regarding the designation of essential services at the Vancouver General Hospital: (1) the board determined the number of beds that must be maintained in the hospital by taking into account the hospital's recommendations of those who had to be in a hospital; 1,000 beds have been designated at the Vancouver General hospital for that purpose. In making this decision, the board considered that a further 350 patients could be served in other hospitals in the lower mainland.

(2) The board has determined how minimal care will be exercised in the VGH. For this purpose it required that 100 employees, who are members of the Hospital Employees Union, must continue to work during any strike. The board based its decision on the fact that other elements in the work force will be required to perform necessary work of those

[ Page 1312 ]

members of the Hospital Employees Union who are absent. This includes excluded management, supervisory staff, other unions, students, doctors and volunteers.

(3) The board has required that essential deliveries will continue. Arrangements have been worked out to ensure that ambulance service, blood supplies, medical supplies and oxygen supplies will be allowed to cross picket lines; also essential fresh food will be permitted into the hospital. It will be necessary for some supplies such as mail to be brought to the hospital by supervisory staff.

(4) In order to ensure continuous monitoring of the board's decision to provide immediate resolution of disputes and to take account of any changing circumstances, a team of industrial relations officers of the Department of Labour will be stationed at the Vancouver General Hospital on a 24-hour basis. This will allow the board to be current at all times and to allow it to reanalyze the decision that has been made and if necessary to designate additional beds or additional employees who may be required in order to ensure that the essentiality of the service at VGH is continued.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I would like some clarification of proceedings in this House. I didn't hear any "noes" when the official opposition asked leave for unanimous agreement of the House to discuss the matter of unemployment in the hospital industry issue. Apparently Mr. Speaker did. I definitely did hear a "no" when the Minister of Labour requested unanimous support of the House to discuss the same matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. KING: In that instance it was ignored and then the minister was allowed to proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you just take your seat for a moment? First of all, it's what I hear — or if I haven't heard it, I presume that someone could have drawn it to my attention. But remember that I definitely heard a "no" when I refused leave. I did not hear a "no", and if I didn't, I cannot report or act upon something I have not heard, Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Following that part of the proceedings, the hon. Minister of Labour asked leave to make a ministerial statement to the House. At that point, if someone denied it, I'm sorry I did not hear that and I allowed it to proceed. I've not asked for leave for you to make a statement because I understand that to be a ministerial statement made to the House, and in the order of the tradition of this House the Leader of the Opposition and other leaders of other parties in the House have always had the prerogative of giving a reply to a ministerial statement. That is what I assume you're on right now.

MR. KING: It is indeed, Mr. Speaker, but I think perhaps it is a commentary on the sense of some fair play and respect for the opposition one can expect from the government that when leave was asked to discuss this matter, then the minister has the gall to come along behind and ask for unanimous consent of the House.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the minister's statement a number of questions occur to me. In outlining the action he's taken to deal with the maintenance of life-supporting services in the Vancouver General Hospital, he indicates that he has directed to the Labour Relations Board the function of designating those services and he is appointing a team of industrial relations officers to maintain a presence in that hospital. He indicated also that the hospital administration is transferring patients.

I understand there are a number of strike votes taken in various hospitals around the lower mainland and I wonder how adequate the staff of the Department of Labour is to accommodate the maintenance of new officers — new component's in each and every hospital — as the threatened strike votes and the threatened strike action hits the other hospitals in the lower mainland.

I'm wondering what plans the Minister of Labour has to facilitate the transfer of patients from Vancouver General to other hospitals which are then subsequently served with strike notice also. There seems to me a limitation on that kind of activity, and I'm sorry that the Minister of Labour gave no indication whatsoever as to what action, what policy, what strategy he and the Department of Labour are taking to bring about a solution to the dispute, rather than ad hoc interventions which give no assurance to the House whatsoever regarding the duration of the dispute we're looking at, regarding the consequences of elective surgery being put off for a projected period of time.

I'm surprised the minister directed all of his comments just to the dispute at Vancouver General rather than to some positive plan and some positive direction in providing a resolution to the dispute in that industry. I regret that and find it very surprising, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish that the minister had elected to give his statement somewhat earlier on in the day because it was the most eloquent statement I can imagine as to the urgency of debate on this matter.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: The government in any debate of

[ Page 1313 ]

this kind, Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: ...can keep its counsel to whatever extent it requires, but the people of British Columbia are entitled through the opposition to express some of the concern that they feel about people being moved out of hospitals and admissions denied, a difference of opinion between the Labour Relations Board and the hospital administration as to what, in actual fact, constitutes an appropriate number of beds to be remaining open in that hospital, an opportunity to question the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to the extent that his department has been involved in that assessment, the fact that VGH is going to have 1,000 beds left out of about 1,800 — and the transfers obviously cannot continue, Mr. Speaker, to other hospitals around this province if the strike spreads — 100 hospital workers left out of 2,500 on the job at VGH. Mr. Speaker, to me it's an absolute indication of the necessity for some debate of this kind, and the government, as I say, may...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: ...keep its counsel and not interfere with any sensitivities, but the opposition has the right to speak up.

MR. WALLACE: My reaction to the minister's statement is that he is certainly making strenuous efforts to solve a problem. But perhaps in his endeavour to be fair to both sides of the argument, with the greatest of respect I suggest that he's losing sight of the fact that human lives are involved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not at all; just the opposite.

MR. WALLACE: The minister's interjecting that this isn't the case at all. But, Mr. Speaker, my position on this issue is very plain, and that is that you can go through all the manoeuvres and all the readjustments and all the designations and all these other administrative procedures, but I ask anybody in this chamber: how would you like to be one of the patients remaining in that hospital under these very harassed and difficult and obviously inefficient circumstances? Medical-care standards cannot be maintained under these circumstances.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It has nothing to do with medical staff.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not talking about medical staff. You're not even listening to what I'm saying.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Medical standards, you said. It has nothing to do with medical standards.

MR. WALLACE: I'm saying that under these circumstances, despite all the adjustments and compromises and the very sincere effort which the minister is making to try and be fair to both parties in the dispute, the person in the middle, namely the sick person, is the one who is being compromised. While this may be all right for one day or two days, or maybe three days, all these other circumstances that have been discussed about the fact that there is a real likelihood of the strike spreading and the 350 patients who will be moved to some other hospital.... When the other hospitals go on strike and start moving patients, the whole situation very early becomes a farce. That's all I'm trying to say.

The fact is that in this kind of strike there is a much greater demand on the part of the minister concerned to act not only in the interests of fairness to both parties but in fairness to the third party. While today the standard may be maintained, or even tomorrow, the kind of statements the minister has made and the action, again, of conscientious members of the Department of Labour in making decisions about what is essential or what isn't essential or to what degree the circumstances are deteriorating — I just think it cannot work beyond a very short period of time. I just want to end on that note, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the privilege of making this statement. I just want to say that my plea with the minister would be to ensure that almost from hour to hour the person foremost in his mind — and I'm sure it will be — is the patient.

MR. SPEAKER: That, hon. members, concludes any remarks by any of the hon. members of this House....

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Closure!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It's obvious that there's a great deal of misunderstanding....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I said, order, Hon. Member.

Interjection.

[ Page 1314 ]

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: It's very obvious that there's a great deal of misunderstanding among the members of this House about the courtesies and the way we extend them to hon. members in this House as a matter of tradition.

Order, I said, order, Hon. Member.

The courtesy is this: that in ministerial statements it's a matter of long standing in this House that if a minister rises in his place to make a ministerial statement, leave is granted. By the same traditions and by the same courtesies, after a ministerial statement I allow, by the traditions of this House, which I think are understandable and good traditions, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, the leader of the Conservative Party, to reply to that statement. That's a courtesy and a tradition of this House which I intend to maintain for the benefit of all the members in this House. But once that courtesy has been extended, that ends the discussion and the debate upon that matter.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Prince Rupert, on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the minister's statement, I would move that you endeavour to try and get unanimous consent of this House to discuss the statement made by the hon. minister.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's out of order, as a point of order, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: I didn't rise on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What other purpose have you on your feet, Hon. Member?

MR. LEA: I'm asking about the leave...that unanimous leave....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you rose on a point of order and I acknowledged you on a point of order.

MR. LEA: That was when I rose before. I didn't say anything this time. You just recognized me.

MR. SPEAKER: The record will show, Hon. Member, that you rose on a point of order, and I acknowledged you on that basis.

MR. LEA: No, it won't show that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, be seated.

MR. LEA: I'll follow your direction, but you're mistaken.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, you've referred to traditions of the House, and if I was to search Hansard and come up with evidence that other persons, upon a ministerial statement being made, were allowed to make statements following the party leaders, would you be prepared to reconsider your statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker's prepared to consider the matters within the House at any time. If you have information or evidence at some time, at your pleasure, bring it to my attention, please.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that you finally got an opportunity to recognize me.

On a point of order, I would like to say that I think it really is very unfair that we are attacking the Minister of Labour on this issue when really it is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That's not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: ...the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). We wouldn't be having this kind of situation at VGH that we have if the Minister of Health....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated. Hon. Member, will you be seated?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Be seated, Hon. Member. There seems to be a tendency among members on both sides of the House to abuse the privileges of the House by raising on fictitious points of order things that are not points of order at all.

In that respect, I would caution all the members of the House to use discretion because once a point of order is raised, the Speaker is obligated to listen at least to the start of that point of order to determine if, in fact, a point of order is being raised in the House. I extend that courtesy to the members of the House and I would hope that when they rise on a point of order it is a legitimate matter to be considered.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

[ Page 1315 ]

MS. BROWN: A point of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, there's no such thing as a point of personal privilege. A point of privilege?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am the representative for the constituency in which the Vancouver General Hospital is located and I may just say that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is running interference for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who is responsible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! This is not a matter of privilege, as you well know. That is not a matter of privilege. Please be seated.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated, Hon. Member.

Interjections.

Orders of the day.

The House in committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)

On vote 10: Minister's office, $88,952 — continued.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver-East): Mr. Chairman, I want to raise two matters, and I'll try to be reasonably brief with them. One affects a few people, but it's a subject of great anguish, and that's the question of children abducted across provincial boundaries and outside of Canada — the question is called childnapping — away from their mothers.

By my account, in terms of the cases that have been brought to my attention since 1974, there have been 13 children of British Columbia who have been abducted, usually by the father, not always the legal father, and most of those children have been abducted out of Canada. Some have been abducted to other provinces.

There is sometimes a custody order involved giving the mother custody. There is sometimes no custody ordered and the father, or whoever has abducted the children, has simple acted to thwart the courts and to deny the mother any real means of getting back those children.

The questions I put to the Attorney-General and the suggestions I make on the subject are these: there should, of course, be an amendment to the Criminal Code section where it is very difficult to prove the abduction under the Criminal Code because the element of intent is very difficult to establish in a criminal court. But, of course, the Criminal Code doesn't bring back the children.

The second thing I say that the Attorney-General should do is to bring into this House without delay legislation — and I think it can be quickly prepared because I think it is somewhere in his office, Mr. Chairman — for the reciprocal enforcement of custody orders across Canada. The Province of Manitoba has such a statute, and when we go in these very anguished cases — and they certainly are for the mothers concerned, and I'm sure probably these things have come to the attention of the Attorney-General already.... But when we go to the Department of External Affairs in Canada and we say: "Will you use your diplomatic good offices to try to secure the return of the children?", then they say: "You have not, even as a province, passed your own reciprocal enforcement of custody orders legislation." Until we take that initial step, our case is weaker in seeking relief at the federal level.

The third thing, I think, Mr. Chairman, that should be done is that there should be — and I think there has been in one or two cases — legal assistance. I'm talking about legal aid given to those mothers who cannot possibly chase their children to, say, Portugal, where some of them have been abducted, or to the Philippines, where others have been abducted, and there engage in a costly litigation process to try to secure in the courts of that land custody of their own children. These are usually children of tender age.

There are also cases, of course, where even after the mother tries through these avenues to secure return of her children in one country, the abductor then takes the children to some other country before those court proceedings are completed. But the initial steps in the provision of legal aid — notwithstanding the budget difficulties which we have, of course, criticized — those steps should be taken at once. I hope that, as we had planned to do, quite frankly, in the NDP at this session of parliament....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there's no question on that, Mr. Premier. The legislation — we've looked at it and we were doing it.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: That's true, we were. But I would ask the Attorney-General whether he will at this session of the Legislature bring in a reciprocal enforcement of custody Act.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I hope

[ Page 1316 ]

so.

MR. MACDONALD: The answer is that you hope so. I don't think it is a difficult thing, because you have the Manitoba legislation.

And I would ask whether in these cases, which entail so much anguish to the mothers, you will do your best to ensure that legal aid and legal assistance is extended to them if they have to carry on a custody battle for their own children in some other jurisdiction.

At this time there are many subjects that can come up, so I'll be brief because I know some of our other members want to ask you questions. I am changing the subject, but the Attorney-General as the chief law officer of the Crown has the main charge, I would expect, in terms of patriation of our constitution. Documents were tabled in the House. I'd be glad to ask the Premier this too, but I would think it should go to the chief law officer of the Crown. There will be a conference, I think, this week, or very soon, on that subject, among the premiers of Canada.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there was a visit by Gordon Robertson at the official level, but soon there will surely be a meeting of the first ministers and the Attorneys-General in June on this subject.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): No, it's not on the agenda.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to express one or two concerns. The first concern I can state very quickly: that we don't have the process of amending our constitution brought back to Canada in such a way that it becomes difficult or almost impossible to secure the amendments that are necessary to affect social change in this country. It would be very easy to adopt a formula just for the sake of patriation which would lead to deadlocks every time an amendment was sought to the constitution.

The proposal that any province, for example, with 25 per cent of the population of Canada should consent to amendments affecting all of Canada — such as the UIC one that passed with difficulty, but under the kind of vague terms we have had in the past — that kind of proposal gives a veto power over constitutional amendment to Quebec and Ontario. I think that should be a matter of concern to this House and to the Attorney-General.

The second thing that I think should give us real concern in this land of Canada is the constitutional guarantees that have been brought into this process of patriation as a bargaining lever by the province of Quebec. I am not in any sense against the expansion of French culture and French language promotion in this country. I don't go along with those people who oppose, say, a French TV station in British Columbia. I think dollars should be spent to promote the language. But at the same time we have to remember that this country is a multicultural country. While there are some language rights, of course, embedded in the constitution, are we now, at the behest of one province, using this situation where we all so earnestly desire to get our own constitution amendment procedure brought home...using that situation to insert into our constitution, in an embedded way, the promotion of the cultural rights of our French-language minority?

I think that is something that I hope the Attorney-General, when he attends these conferences, will view with considerable concern, bearing in mind, as I said, that Canada has and must remain a multicultural nation, where people from all of the lands of the world have come to Canada and should have the opportunity to retain their mother cultures and their mother languages — be they Ukrainian, be they Chinese, be they Scotch, be they French, be they English. We are made up of all of these cultures, and that's what makes Canada an exciting place.

I have real misgivings that we should see, as part of the patriation process, this kind of extraneous subject brought in and that we should find embedded in our constitution particular cultural promotion on behalf of one of the groups in Canada, as much as I respect and like that particular group. So I express that as a concern. I would hope that the Attorney-General would have something to say about it.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to another facet of the Attorney-General's department today, relative to the Real Estate Act, particularly in regard to the multiple listings. I believe that the matter of commissions, as established when multiple listings came into effect, is under consideration by the Rosenbluth commission that is looking into this question. But I think there are other aspects of the multiple-listing service that may not have been as much in evidence as that particular facet.

I would suggest to the Attorney-General that the multiple-listing service has had a very great influence on the inflated values that are being placed on property here in British Columbia. I base my claim on several sheets of documentation that I have here relative to the Duncan area from the multiple-listing service catalogue.

I would suggest, Mr. Attorney-General, that the multiple-listing service has encouraged salesmen and real estate firms to obtain listings at any cost, as it were, or at any price, because the firm who has the listing, once that property is sold, receives half of the commission. So it becomes a battle to see which local firm, and which salesman, will get the listing, and the

[ Page 1317 ]

price at which the property is listed becomes a secondary consideration.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, I missed your point there. What becomes a secondary consideration?

MRS. WALLACE: The price that it is listed at becomes a secondary consideration. They want to list it at any price. I have these examples here. For example, a piece of property — I won't bore the House with the legal description, but I have the information if the Attorney-General wants it — listed at $26,000 sold at $20,000. Another one, in the same area, listed at $26,000 — actual selling price $20,000.

Here is an outstanding one — this is just a piece of acreage, a lot, lot 3, 1.68 acres — listed, Mr. Chairman, at $23,000 and sold at $6,000. Another one listed at $31,500 sold at $27,000. One listed at $37,900 sold at $32,000. Another listed at $35,500 sold at $32,500.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are those all in one area?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, these are all from Duncan. Incidentally, Mr. Attorney-General, at the time the multiple-listing service was initiated in 1962, there were in Duncan 16 salesmen; today there are 130. In the Vancouver Island area — the Vancouver Island real estate board — there are 350 salesmen. The total salesmen for Vancouver Island is one for every 300 persons living on Vancouver Island — one real estate salesman. In my opinion, the multiple-listing service is one of the things that has caused this kind of development.

These go on, Mr. Attorney-General, and if you'd like to see them I can certainly send you copies. The point is that in order to obtain these Sunflight tours and all these other gimmicks that are being handed out by real estate companies to salesmen who list.... The secret is to list. Once you list it, whatever it's sold at, you get half the commission. That is causing really an inflationary trend in real estate generally. It's adding greatly to that because the prices we see in the press, as we read these ads, are the list prices. We don't hear so much about the actual selling price.

Occasionally, Mr. Chairman, we have people from Toronto or Vancouver moving to Vancouver Island. The real estate prices in those areas are notably higher than they are on Vancouver Island, so occasionally somebody actually sells a house at the list price. When that happens, this again is a very inflationary effect on the whole real estate business. I would urge the Attorney-General to have a good look at this multiple-listing situation and see if we can't get real estate back on a more equitable basis where we're not simply building up a false premise as to the price or the value of that real estate, and succeeding in lining the pockets of the real estate companies and the salesmen involved.

I read in the press the other day...Block Bros., for example, their profits had increased 162 per cent last year. This is in an area when we're trying to control inflation, Mr. Chairman. I would urge upon the Attorney-General to look at this particular factor of multiple-listing, and I shall see that he gets copies of these examples.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to prolong this debate, but I would like to just call to the Attorney-General's attention a matter of some serious concern, and also some complexity, in the relationships between husband and wife in relation to community property or so-called community property.

I do realize that the law was not able to adopt a position in relation to the two reports that have come forth on this subject — both the federal report on law reform and the Berger commission report in British Columbia — and I would like to feel that this inability to come to a consensus of principle was because they, as lawyers, are very much aware of the serious complexity of trying to enact this type of legislation, and I don't want to discount those. But I would hope that we as a government and the Attorney-General in particular would adopt this principle in thought and make every effort to try and achieve a situation where this right could be enjoyed as a matter of law rather than a matter of agreement.

It's not my intention to relate before this House the number of cases where there has been gross injustice in Canada. They're well known, and I think we all know them. I would like to point out to the Attorney-General that in seeking this type of principle and eventual evolution of legislation I believe that women would be quite willing to accept a situation where any assets brought to the marriage by either party would, in fact, remain the property of that individual should there be a dissolution of the marriage. But any assets accrued as a benefit of those properties brought to the marriage would then, in fact, be considered community property. This type of agreement should be a matter of course within our laws, but we should not preclude the right — should any couple entering into marriage wish not to have this arrangement — that they could not be able to, in fact, draw up a legal agreement to the contrary.

I would think, when you get on the more emotional basis, that any young lady who was so much in love that she had to sit down and sign a legal document which would in essence point out to her that her husband was somewhat mercenary in his attitudes towards assets and money might not stop and think twice before entering into this marriage.

I feel many women feel, and many men — and I've

[ Page 1318 ]

discussed this with many men who are not in favour of liberation of either side, but in favour of equal opportunity — that if you had this feeling of joint accumulation of assets, we would then be recognizing that a woman, or a man, who chooses to stay in the home environment for their occupation, in fact, are contributing to the assets that are accrued in that marriage.

If a woman is running a home and raising the children, or if a man is, they are contributing as much to that marriage and the assets accrued in that marriage as the partner who is gainfully employed in the work force or in their own business. If one does not run smoothly, then the other is not.

I might interject a personal note. I remember my father telling me on the eve of my own wedding that if a man is not happy at home he's not going to be happy at work, and it he's not happy at work he's not going to be happy at home. I think that applies whether it is the male who is working or the female or both. One of the points of dissention in many marriages is this whole matter of money management and asset management.

If the homemaker could in fact feel that their contribution in the home is contributing to the home benefits, the assets, and their own personal security — should that home be dissolved — I think that it would have a much more beneficial effect in terms of family unity.

To have it otherwise in today's society I believe is to have society instigating a divisive factor within the home. We all know, because of gift taxes and income taxes, that where there are two partners working to any degree you have to sit down if you're going to protect the unit from estate taxes and decide who pays for what, and a record has to be kept of this transaction. This introduces into the marriage on a monetary basis a his-and-hers approach which I feel is emotionally detrimental to a solid relationship and may well spark the beginning of a problem that would not otherwise be there.

Again, it's quite common knowledge that many of those who choose to be the homemaker — and in most instances it's women — will after a number of years of marriage seek gainful employment for no greater reason than that they fear for their own security if the marriage is showing signs of strain. Also, I think in many good marriages this can be a pervading thought as time goes on. Many women do want to seek employment for self-fulfilment, but we should not add to the problems the fact that the woman should seek employment to assure her own security within the marriage, or should the marriage break up financially.

As the situation exists now — and I realize that it's a common statement from both the judiciary and the legal fraternity — there is ample provision within the current law to allow the judge to make a fair and equitable decision

I wouldn't in any way wish to cast aspersions upon the judicial fraternity or the judiciary of our country or this province, but I would say without hesitation that this interpretation is open too much to the personal prejudices of that particular judge, to his own personal philosophy, and to the articulateness and persuasiveness of the individual lawyers. Too often the courts through pressure, through the previously mentioned reasons, do not fully investigate the assets of a dissolving marriage.

It's for these reasons that I would ask the Attorney-General to assure this House and the people of British Columbia that while we recognize the severe complexities of trying to introduce this type of legislation, he as an individual and we as a government do support the principle of equity in property of marriage, which is commonly known as community property.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has heard it now from both sides of the House. I raised the issue on Friday, the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) raises it today, and in both instances we agreed completely with the recommendations which were brought down by the Attorney-General's own royal commission on the family — the Berger report. No. 6 of the Berger report came out very clearly with the recommendations just articulated by the hon. member for North Okanagan and by myself on Friday when I discussed this issue. I am sure the Attorney-General has received a large number of letters from various groups and individuals around the province also in support of the recommendations brought down in No. 6 of the Berger report.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, he supports it, as the present Deputy Attorney-General does too, I am sure. I know also that the present Attorney-General was visited on March 22, Mr. Chairman, by a group of women who were here for a rally on that day, and they spoke out very strongly in support of the recommendations brought down by the sixth report.

On Friday when I spoke I suggested to the Attorney-General that I would be very happy to help by drafting legislation which would deal with this very topic. In the House today I introduced this legislation, which means that I can no longer discuss it. So I won't discuss it any more except to say that I hope that when the Attorney-General rises to his feet to answer the other questions which I am about to place before him he will deal with the recommendation of the member for North Okanagan as well as of a lot of other people around the province that the recommendations in No. 6 of the Berger

[ Page 1319 ]

report dealing with community of property be implemented with all deliberate speed.

One of the other things which I raised on Friday had to do with the landlord and tenant legislation. We were a bit pressed for time, and the Attorney-General did not get an opportunity to answer the questions which I raised at that time, so I am hoping that he will be able to deal with those questions today. If he has mislaid the notes which he made on Friday, I will be very happy to raise the questions again. I have the Blues here, so I will just repeat them.

Today I want to raise a couple of other questions, and one has to do with the whole issue of legal aid. I know it has been canvassed quite extensively, but more needs to be said about it. The decision to deal with it simply in terms of dollars and cents, and how expensive it is, really just isn't good enough at this time. I accept the statements made by the Attorney-General that last year over $1 million was spent on legal aid and that, in fact, the service has $2 million — a very large figure, anyway — and that the service has become just too rich.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's $3.7 million.

MS. BROWN: Fine. But I want to bring another perspective to bear on this. I am not a legal person myself, and I think that probably sometimes hearing from non-legal people who have a different perspective might be of value. In fact, I am going to use a lot of the arguments used by an economist, a Mr. David Ross, who attended a conference on legal aid in Quebec in 1974. I know that we had some people at that conference.

At the time Mr. Ross raised the whole philosophy that really legal aid has become a very integral part of our whole social security system, almost as important as such programmes as income maintenance, Manpower, health, education, day care and these kinds of things. The reason he put it that way, as he pointed out to us at the conference, was that the law was now so involved in every aspect of our lives that it had moved from the point where people needed a legal opinion on things to where they really need legal information just to enable us to survive in the kind of complicated society in which we live.

He also pointed out at that time that in fact this kind of information presently is only accessible to people who can afford to pay. As a result of this, there are all kinds of disparities exacerbated in the system as a result of the fact that all of us are affected by the law. Yet only those of us who can afford to pay for legal opinions, advice or information really get the full benefits of the law. I know that as the chief law enforcement officer in the land and protector of justice for all of us, the Attorney-General will accept that it is a fact that there is a benefit to everyone to be able to have information — legal information and legal advice — much more so than just a legal opinion in order to function in society as a whole.

So what Mr. David Ross suggested, and what I'm going to suggest — and certainly a position which I support and I hope the Attorney-General supports, too — is that we have to look at legal aid now in much broader terms; we have to look at it in terms of being a complete and integral part of the entire social and economic fabric of this society in which we live. We cannot any longer see it as gaps or plugging the holes left by the system.

It's not just a matter of rushing in to use legal aid when one has a particular case and no money to deal with it. In fact, just in order to survive in the system we have to have legal information, every single one of us. So what we have to start doing is looking at the delivery of this information. Really, to look at it or to deal with it in terms as just a legal-aid structure is no longer good enough; we have to look at alternatives. We have to look in terms of a much broader base.

Some of the suggestions made by Mr. Ross at that time had to do with legal education in the school system, in the same way that we came to a realization of how important nutrition was to us, and nutrition became incorporated in the school system to a very great extent. Not as an alternative or an elective but as a compulsory course, some basic kind of legal education has to be dealt with in the formal school system as it exists.

Also there's going to be a need for more para-professionals in the field. There are all kinds of community groups growing in the community in which we live and operating as an adversary on behalf of people. I know, for example, that such a group as the Women's Legal Aid Clinic — which deals almost exclusively, again, with domestic problems, family problems, deals almost exclusively, again, with people who have no money — is certainly in our community and the community wants this group.

It talks about a "law for the layman" programme. Here again we're very fortunate in Vancouver, very fortunate in British Columbia, that the community has responded in a variety of ways. Here we have the Vancouver People's Law School which is trying to meet this need, which is not considered "legal aid" as such, but really is part of this broader kind of system which has to be developed in the community if the information, which we all need in order to not break the law or even to function completely as total human beings, is going to be dealt with.

He also talked about reform, simplification, demystification of the law — how that is ever going to be possible, quite frankly, I don't know.

Listening to the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) give a simple reply as to why he would not withdraw a statement — and as you know

[ Page 1320 ]

the minister is a lawyer — needed a legal interpretation. Just a matter of saying "I will not withdraw," which you and I would have said, took him an hour and a half, and I'm still not clear whether he withdrew the statement which he was I supposed to withdraw or not. So certainly we have to deal with the whole business of the language. We also have to deal with the whole concept of the law being so complicated and so strange in the way in which it operates that only the most learned can understand it — the whole mystification process. And that's part of the legal aid system too, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doctors and lawyers.

MS. BROWN: And the business of access to legal services....

AN HON. MEMBER: They all speak in Latin.

MS. BROWN: Yes. The former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) talked about our being a multicultural society and that people of all languages should be able to exist in this country — maybe Latin too — or else the law is going to have to speak in the language that the rest of us speak.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're existing pretty well under this system.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not; I'm fighting, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman. I really am fighting under the system for....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I'm losing weight — all kinds of terrible things are happening to me. However, they are trying....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I beg your pardon!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On vote 10, please.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, they're trying to distract me and I wish you would call them to order.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I really want to talk about access to legal advice and, certainly, access to the law. Here again I think we're very, very fortunate that in Vancouver we have groups like VCLAS; that we have groups like the People's Law School; the Community Action League which operates as an adversary system for people under community services; the Women's Legal Aid Clinic — all of these groups as well as the legal aid system.

What I would like the Attorney-General to do really is to start taking a broader vision of legal aid, look at the funding of these community groups, look at the whole business of legal education right through the school system, look at the whole concept of access for everyone in the community in terms of part of the legal aid system. When you do that, then a budget of $3 million really doesn't seem to be that much out of line.

You know, there was a time — and I don't want to repeat myself — but there was a time when it wasn't necessary to know the law and to understand the law, but those times have changed. Now you really do have to know and you really do have to understand, which brings me to my point, which is that I really am very, very sorry to find that the Attorney-General's department has not been increasing the funding for these very vital community services which are part of the legal aid fabric of the community, that in fact VCLAS is in danger of going under — the Vancouver community legal assistance service, or whatever it's called. The Women's Legal Aid Clinic is desperate for funds. They're fishing round out there all over the place trying to cover the most tiny of budgets. It's not as though they're asking for large sums of money.

Again the People's Law School does such a magnificent job. I know that the deputy minister knows about the work of the Vancouver People's Law School, the fact that they run courses free of cost for anyone who wants to take a course in real estate, in property law, in divorce, whatever it is...and they go even further than that in terms of their publications. There are all kinds of publications, Mr. Chairman. The youth and the law, women and the law, divorce law, property law, all of these things, through their publications, they have put in language which ordinary people can understand. They have managed to demystify the law for a lot of people, and they really are very worthy of a great deal of support from the Attorney-General's department.

Now I know that the Attorney-General — again I repeat — as the chief law-enforcement officer of this province wants to see to it that the kind of justice is done and the protection of everyone in the province is made possible. When the community itself gives rise to these kinds of services, surely it's an indication that the community has recognized the need for them, and surely one of the rules of the Attorney-General's department is to ensure that these groups thrive and flourish, not just in Vancouver but throughout the rest of the province.

If anything, the Attorney-General should be

[ Page 1321 ]

looking at the whole concept of expanding this section of the budget so the people on Vancouver Island, Prince George and the Peace River country, and in other parts of the province too, would have the benefit of groups like the People's Law School and the Women's Legal Aid Clinic and certainly VCLAS. They would have to change their name once they got into the interior.

Okay, on to another topic, Mr. Attorney-General, if you are making notes. I guess as a result of legislation introduced in the United States in the late 1960s, something known as affirmative action was introduced as one way of dealing with disparities between people either as a result of their race or as a result of sex differences — dealing with discrimination. The concept was that first you have human rights legislation which said: "Stop, don't do this." Then you followed that up with support in having affirmative action, legislation which said: "These are the positive things that you can do to ensure that the gaps are closed." Various departments and various groups throughout the community for a long time monitored the system as it was in existence in the United States, where it was introduced specifically to deal with racial disparities, and found that in fact it did have merit and in this country introduced it in terms of discrimination against women.

Now one of the things I did two years ago, and again last year, was to introduce into this House a piece of legislation dealing with affirmative action. At that time, my request to the then government was that this is where it should start, in government, that government should set the example. Government should be the model employer and lead the way so that the private sector would have a chance to monitor the government programme and see how effective it was and then be able, certainly, to follow their example without actually needing legislation being introduced at that time.

As a result of this a couple of things happened. Surely one of the most exciting things that happened happened in the Department of the Attorney-General, because in the Department of the Attorney-General a task force was struck to look at the whole concept of an equal-opportunities programme for women in the Attorney-General's department. It is a superb report that that task force presented as a document to the Attorney-General's department for discussion, a jumping off point to go from there.

Now this particular report, Mr. Chairman, is so good that I have used it in a number of parts of this country, not just in British Columbia alone, because, in fact, what it does is to spell out in detail how such a system would be set up to ensure that a very limited period of time there was true utilization of all kinds of skills and talent that the women in that department have and can contribute to the department.

The proposal itself put forward the philosophy that, in fact, not to have an equal opportunities concept in the department was to do the department a disservice, because that would mean that the department was not utilizing the assets and the benefits and the skills and the expertise that was available in that department to its fullest. It also pointed out that failure to do so would mean the Attorney-General's department, which is a truly representative department of government and, specifically as a department of justice and the one that should set the example, was, in fact, not setting the kind of example that it should set.

The programme went into great detail. It did an analysis. It established targets and spelled it right out in great detail as to exactly how the assessments should be done and how it should be set up, and then made five recommendations to the Attorney-General. Really what I want to find out from the Attorney-General is precisely what has happened to those five recommendations because, in fact, this task force made their report in January of this year. We are now nearly five months later; it is May. I want to know whether the recommendations in the task force for discussion by the management committee, for the budget.... It quite clearly states here that included in the Attorney-General's budget there should be funding to hire a manager to set up this equal opportunities division and to set up the whole division of it to inform all of the employees of the acceptance of this report by April 1. Now I had hoped to ask this question on May1 but the House was not in session on May 1. So you have had your 30 days. Through you, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has had his 30 days past the time that this report asked that everyone in the department be informed about it and that all of these copies of the report should be made accessible to everyone in the department.

Now I believe, certainly that the copies have been made available, because I have found it extremely difficult to get additional copies of the report. Because wherever I go and take the report with me — it's a superb report, excellent, and I use the report — whoever I discuss it with takes away my copy of the report. So I have to come rushing back here to try and get another copy of the report. Finally I found that there were not more copies of the report. This is a report which is in very great demand. I cannot get any additional copies of the report. They need them desperately in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Ontario. Everywhere I go I take this report because it really is the best thing I've seen done in terms of the Canadian experience of how to set up equal opportunities organization in a department efficiently, effectively, cleanly and quickly and get it to work. It's a good report, yes.

[ Page 1322 ]

One of the things that really is good about the report is that the people who put it together seem to be so tremendously efficient and did such an excellent job — so much so that they included an appendix at the back which should be required reading, quite frankly, for every department. For every other minister whose estimates come before us, I am going to get it and talk to them about this report done for the Attorney-General's department and ask why a similar report has not been done for their department and why they have not followed the really magnificent example set by the Attorney-General's department in setting up this task force.

Having said that, what's happened? What has happened? I am still waiting to hear whether any of the five recommendations made in this report have been implemented, It is a matter of crucial importance that before I go around recommending to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) and other ministers, I be able to say to them: "Look at what your Attorney-General has done!" I see what the Attorney-General's department has written; what I want to see is what the Attorney-General's department has done as far as this report is concerned.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I am really glad that the deputy minister is here because he is a real freedom fighter for women, Mr. Chairman. We are really, really pleased to have him on our side. Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: He better look out for his job.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I hope not, Mr. Attorney-General, through you. Yes, okay.

I just have two very brief things I want to raise before my 40 minutes are up. The Attorney-General's department commissioned a study on prostitution. I was really pleased.... Yes, you did, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman. I was really pleased to read about the fact that such a study was being done, because it was an indication to me that the Attorney-General's department was going to deal once and for all with the whole issue of an act involving two people of which only one person was always considered to be the guilty party under the law — another reason why we need legal aid services.

To me the indication of the study was that this was the beginning of something. That was a very quick study. I don't want to say it was superficial, but it only included 100 prostitutes, and dealt with things such as how they became prostitutes, how they were treated under the law, and so forth. I recognize also that a lot of thanks must go again to Dr. John Hogarth who, I think, was responsible for the funding. I hope he's still with the department because he took care of rape, and he's certainly taken care of prostitution too.

What's happened to that study? It was a good report. I don't know whether we've all received it, but we've had a chance to read something about the report because it was certainly dealt with in the Vancouver newspapers to a large extent, but there hasn't been any kind of follow-up from the Attorney-General's department that we are aware of. Maybe there has been, and maybe there is draft legislation dealing with this area. Maybe the law is going to begin to look at both people involved in the act of prostitution, rather than just the one. Maybe the law is going to look at the way a prostitute is treated before the courts but, if so, the Attorney-General's department is keeping this a secret. What I want to ask the Attorney-General's department to do is to share with us, because I certainly accept that report as a preliminary, as a beginning; it certainly wasn't the end, and we're waiting to see what happens now.

The other thing I'm going to ask, to do with this particular issue of prostitution, is that the Attorney-General's department not act in isolation. There are a lot of people who have input that they would like to make into this very crucial topic, and I ask that the Attorney-General tap these resources.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You will? Okay.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who?

MS. BROWN: All of the women's groups; certainly I hope you're listening to some of the police groups; you're listening to the hospital groups; the social workers' group, the psychologists. It's an area that touches on a lot of different disciplines. All I'm saying is that I hope that any decision being made isn't going to be just an internal one, in terms of your department alone, but that you will ask for some input from the rest of the community as well. Certainly I know that the women's groups want to have some kind of input into it. It's a problem that we are wrestling with. There is not a question that there isn't a hard and fast position among the people involved in women's groups as to the way in which to accept the whole concept of prostitution.

In the United States prostitutes have formed a union and are fighting for the right to be regarded as a legal profession. There is the other side of the coin, too, where there are a number of people who believe that the act of prostitution itself is an act of selling

[ Page 1323 ]

one's body and certainly is not something that should be legalized.

So before you make any decision at all about legislation, let's have some kind of discourse about it and listen to some ideas on this other than your own.

I want to talk about juvenile alcoholism. There's absolutely no way that I can talk about juvenile alcoholism in two minutes, so I'm going to sit down and I'll get up again and do my 40 minutes on juvenile alcoholism.

MRS. JORDAN: I won't take more than a couple of minutes. I think I can say what I have to say in two minutes.

Two points were raised by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown). I would like to say how pleased I am that she does support community property, and it's nice to be working in a common cause. I will, without any malice, advise you that I started speaking on this subject in this House in 1967, and I am pleased that the current Attorney-General is more responsive than your Attorney-General was, and it is on that matter that I would also like to address myself for just a moment.

The member talked about the need for information on women and the law. I quite agree, and I would draw to the House's attention that under the former Social Credit administration the minister without portfolio, the Member for North Okanagan, in conjunction with a member from the Attorney-General's department and the head of the women's bureau of the Department of Labour, worked many, many months and went through many hurdles in order to publish a book called Women and the Law in British Columbia. I have a copy of it here.

The idea of the book came about because of the fact that we are entwined in so many regulations and laws in our everyday existence, whether we're men, women or children. One of the problems that I found when I first entered government was that I simply couldn't understand the statutes, no matter how simple they seemed to be. As I couldn't understand them after many nights of studying them, I wondered how on earth the average person could understand them. For months — in fact, two years — I carried home the revised statutes every night from this session to try and put in my own words an interpretation of that statute without in any way making an inference as to what the law was in terms of any deviation, It was impossible, and it was with the help of those two people that we spent several months and did put into what we considered a simple understandable form the most common statutes that we felt the average family ran into in British Columbia and should know about.

One of the severe problems we face is that people get into difficulty quite innocently because they're not aware of their rights, or they can't understand the statutes, or they're not aware that it exists. I found in attending many women's group's meetings, as a member of government, that they were frequently working very vigorously on an amendment to the law which in fact had already taken place, and they weren't aware of it.

One of the objections to the publication of the book was that it would be misleading to the public, and this did not prove so. In fact, it proved to be very helpful to the public in that they could, as a matter of routine, we thought, go to a court house or anywhere to get some basic reading — that it could be used in the schools, that it could be used at colleges, and it was.

The second objection that was thought to be a matter of concern was that the legal profession would object to this type of publication, and I'm pleased to say that that was not the case. In fact they couldn't endorse it, but they praised it, wanted more copies made, and, I'm told, many of them kept it in their drawer for their own reference.

We printed 20,000 copies — there was no advertising. I would just say that Andy Stephen gave us two announcements of it, one at 6 o'clock and one at midnight on the news, and within two months from the result of that publicity, 20,000 copies — our total publication — was gone.

Certainly it's diminishing now, but by the time we left government, I had no less than seven major cardboard boxes of requests from people in British Columbia and other provinces who wanted a copy of this book. This spurred us on to revise the book — which we did after much effort — and it was in its completed state of revision when there was a change of government in 1972. I spoke to the then Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), and asked — whatever name it came under I cared not — that this revised edition be published.

I regret to advise the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) that the Attorney-General absolutely refused to, and her government did, and I felt that this was a very blind attitude to take.

I would hope that the Attorney-General of today would consider, very seriously, this very inadequate copy that now exists of the original publication. If the revised edition exists still in the Labour department or the Attorney-General's department, I suggest that we review all the current legislation and put into publication a book "Family Law in British Columbia," and that this be in a booklet form of a very simple nature, but that it have three loose-leaf holes in it so that anyone who is interested in cataloguing it can break it down into a loose-leaf book; and then, anytime there's a change in legislation, they could get that page in its simplified form.

This would save a major republication for many years. I believe that it would have the endorsation of

[ Page 1324 ]

the Law Society of British Columbia, and I'm sure it would have the appreciation of many, many citizens and that there might then not be such a need to call upon the various aid societies that the hon. member mentioned.

I'm sure they still need to exist, but I think this would help foster general knowledge and independence. It should be in all our schools, all our regional colleges, our student nursing training programmes and available to the public free of charge.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General on the Police Commission and their very willing approach to the job that they're doing. They've come into my riding on several occasions in response to requests and have been willing to travel over to Quadra Island to meet with concerned residents there and, on the whole, have accounted for themselves very well within my own constituency. I think they deserve a lot of credit for it.

Mr. Attorney-General, I know that communities throughout the province are seeking additional police, and I know that this is a common request which comes to you. I know it's also very difficult for you to try to meet all of those requests. The federal government is also wanting to cut back on the cost-sharing of police costs, and this is going to add further difficulties to the provincial government in trying to meet the requests of communities throughout the province.

I also know that in the years prior to 1972, the provincial government did not obtain its quota that it was entitled to under the federal-provincial government sharing programme. I have a clipping here dated April 15,1975, from The Vancouver Sun, in which the Solicitor-General, Warren Allmand, was commenting to people here in B.C. that the strength of the RCMP forces here in B.C. had been allowed to lag below proper levels during the previous Social Credit provincial government.

"Allmand said the NDP government has been more amenable to increasing police strength to match increasing population. As a result of the previous provincial government policies, B.C. fell way behind to catch up. It means we are adding more men in one year than we ever did before, and far more facilities are needed."

Now I'm appealing to you, Mr. Attorney-General, because of various situations in my own riding, that you do meet this year the full commitment in terms of acquiring the number of police officers that are available under this federal-provincial cost-sharing plan.

The police commission, when it was in Campbell River in response to a request from the council there, prepared for the information of council and myself and the RCMP a very comprehensive report. Again, I want to compliment them on the work that they did as a result of the meeting in Campbell River. There are some interesting points that are made in this report which apply specifically to Campbell River and area which I would like to draw to your attention.

Campbell River municipality itself in 1975 had a population of 14,500 people. Its police strength is 16, which means that there is a ratio of one policeman to every 906 people. In the unorganized territory surrounding Campbell River there is a population of 8,000 but there are only five policemen, which is one for 1,600 persons. The report prepared by the police commission then goes on to make some comparisons with other similar communities.

For instance, in Campbell River where there is one for every 906 people, the number of cases per police is 129. In Cranbrook, which has a similar population of just over 15,000, they have 19 police — one for every 794 — and 111 cases per police instead of 129. Port Moody, which has a population of 13,000, somewhat below that of Campbell River, has 19 on its police force; that's one to every 684 people instead of one to over every 900 people. Comparisons are made with Dawson Creek, Kitimat, Terrace, White Rock, Powell River and, in each and every case, it points out that, per population, Campbell River is really very understaffed. They have not had an increase since 1970, and the population increase in Campbell River has been phenomenal; it's one of the fastest growing areas in all of the province.

The police study goes on to look at the whole operation of the police in Vancouver, and indicates that they are having problems in providing sufficient manpower for busy periods. Now that's not unusual, but the report says that the staff-sergeant in charge of Campbell River has maintained monthly charts which depict the day, the month and the neighbourhood which generates the greatest number of calls for police service. Based on this analysis, manpower is deployed in an organized manner. This results in the best possible use of resources, so there is no indication here that the staff-sergeant in charge up there is doing anything other than an excellent job in working with the number of police that he has.

The report also says: "Police productivity within the limits of resources available seems to be as high in Campbell River as in any other comparable detachment."

Mr. Attorney-General, there is also a recommendation in here that one policeman be located on Quadra Island. Quadra Island has a substantial population of close to 2,000 now, or at least in the summertime it's close to 2,000; and the report recommends that a permanent policeman be located on Quadra Island. Now there has been an agreement that one resident policeman be located on

[ Page 1325 ]

Quadra for the summer. I'm appealing, on behalf of the residents of Quadra Island, that he be left there on a permanent basis.

One of the problems that the people on Quadra find is that once the last ferry has sailed, the residents on Quadra know that the police have gone home. As a result, many problems on the island occur after the last sailing because they know very well there is no resident policeman and all is clear for them to raise a ruckus or whatever.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What's its population?

MS. SANFORD: It's almost 2,000 in the summer. Now I think there is a figure in here which gives the actual population. I'll see if I can find it, according to the police report.

But the other point is that the most accepted.... There's really no agreed level of policing per population, but the police report says that the most accepted minimum standard is one policeman for every 750 citizens in a city, and one for every 1,000 persons in a rural area. These are minimum standards. So, based on that standard, Campbell River should have 19 members in the municipality and eight in the unorganized territory; right now they have only 16 and five.

I am just seeing if I can locate the section which gives the population for Quadra. All right. The police right now cover both Quadra and Cortes. Cortes is the much smaller island and has a population which is much, much smaller than that of Quadra. The report says: "I understand there is a total population of approximately 3,000 persons living on the island." So that'll give you an indication; I think it is close to 2,000 on a permanent basis.

So I am requesting on behalf of Quadra that the policeman who is going to be there for the summer be there on a permanent basis. I know the ratepayers' association has had many meetings on this; they asked that the police commission come and talk to them about it, and are most concerned. They are grateful that they're going to have one there for the summer, but they are now hoping that will be extended to be on a permanent basis.

I would like to raise another item at this stage, Mr. Minister, and that relates to a letter I wrote to you some time ago, which you were kind enough to answer, and on which you have since spoken to me about on a personal basis. This relates to the fact that people who have asked to have homes built in the Courtenay area have found that contractors are not always reliable.

As you suggested in your letter to the particular constituent who raised this problem, everyone who goes to a contractor should make the effort and take the time to check out the background, the reputation and reliability of that particular contractor.

Unfortunately, not everybody knows that. As a result, as happened to this particular constituent, he paid out some $15,250 to a contractor and ended up losing his home.

I realize this is a very difficult area for you to come up with any sensible legislation, but I'm asking that you do consider some sort of licensing for contractors, or some sort of bonding for contractors. The only thing that's happened here is that the contractor apparently accepted the money as payment, even though he had not fulfilled his obligation of the contract, went off to Hawaii, spent the money, came back and declared bankruptcy. Now there's really very little that my constituent can do in terms of reclaiming his money or getting a house for his family.

What suggestions you can come up with I'm not sure because I realize it is a difficult area. But it seems to me that some sort of licensing or bonding for contractors, particularly those that are building new homes.... I know that the whole area of house repairs comes into this, but for those who are building new homes there should be some better protection for persons like this one who lost his home as a result of a contractor that declared bankruptcy. The next issue I would like to raise with you, Mr. Attorney-General, relates to the provincial coat of arms, which is chapter 305 of the revised statutes.

I have a publication, which is a partisan political publication, on which appears the provincial coat of arms. I'm somewhat concerned about this and would really like you to speak on this when you're answering in the House later this afternoon. The provincial coat of arms is very clear. I would just like to read one section, section 2:

"No persons shall assume or use in the course of his trade, occupation or calling or otherwise howsoever the provincial coat of arms as in use in the various executive departments of the provincial government, or any design and imitation of the same, or calculated to deceive by its resemblance thereto, or any paper or other material on which the same or any design or imitation thereof or calculated to deceive as aforesaid is stamped, engraved, printed or otherwise marked, but nothing herein shall effect the accustomed use of the same by the Members of the Legislative Assembly, or by duly authorized officers of the provincial government."

Now this is the same legalese we were making reference to earlier in the House, but to me it's very clear that the provincial coat of arms has a very limited use and that any person who attempts to deceive by using that provincial coat of arms is, in fact, acting in opposition to the particular statute I referred to.

What I think I will do, Mr. Attorney-General, is

[ Page 1326 ]

send you over this particular pamphlet, and point out to you that the coat-of-arms appears very clearly on the front of the publication. There also appears the signature of J.R. Nicholson, Lieutenant-Governor at that time. I think it's deceptive, because it looks like an official publication; not only that, but the publication starts out with the words "Dear Friends" at the top, and then immediately following that appears the Lieutenant-Governor's signature. I think that this is in direct contravention of chapter 305, the Provincial Coat of Arms Act, and I would ask you to comment on it when you make your comments later.

The fourth item that I would like to raise today relates to the Land Registry Act. Following an amendment to the Land Registry Act in the spring of 1974 requiring that purchasers of land in B.C. state their citizenship, I asked the then Attorney-General to carry out a study on the results of that amendment to try to determine how extensive the purchase of land in British Columbia was by non-citizens, and how much of a problem it was.

At that time, the study was done for a three-month period, from the beginning of August through to the end of October, and I think some very interesting results were revealed at that time. I do have the report which was prepared as a result of that research, and if the Attorney-General does not have it then I'd be happy to make that available to him. I think this is a significant issue, and I think, Mr. Attorney-General, that it's time we did some additional research now, through the land registry office, to see what has been happening with respect to the sale of B.C. lands to absentee foreigners since the original research was done in 1974.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: It is important, Mr. Attorney-General, because it ties in with the whole question of foreign ownership in this country. I think that if we in Canada are going to do anything about foreign ownership, then certainly land is one of the areas with which we can deal provincially.

When you look at the figures with respect to foreign ownership in this country, it becomes increasingly clear that we must become alarmed about what is happening with respect to the sale of our B.C. land. In the manufacturing industries, for instance, there is 56.7 per cent foreign ownership; mining industry, 60 per cent foreign ownership; oil and gas wells, 82.6 per cent foreign ownership; petroleum refineries, 99.9 per cent foreign ownership; motor vehicles and parts, 95.6 per cent; industrial electrical equipment, 89.6 per cent foreign owned; rubber products, 82.9. per cent foreign owned; synthetic textiles, 7 1.5 per cent; industrial chemicals, 58.9 per cent.

Most people are concerned about this kind of foreign ownership. I know that the people in my constituency are very concerned about foreign ownership of land, and I'm asking at this time that you consider doing additional research in the land registry office with respect to the purchase of land by absentee foreigners.

The recent court case in Prince Edward Island ruled in favour of Prince Edward Island. P.E.I. had brought in legislation which prohibited foreigners and non-residents of P.E.I. from purchasing land in that province. They were concerned about the foreign ownership, but they recognized that they had to bring in their legislation in such a way that it would apply to non-residents of P.E.I. — meaning other Canadians — as well, so that they would not be in contravention of the Canadian Citizenship Act, which gives the federal government jurisdiction over foreigners and aliens. The supreme court ruled in favour of P.E.I.

Since then, the Prime Minister had indicated that he is prepared to change the citizenship Act so that each province can bring in legislation, if it so desires, prohibiting the sale of land within that province to absentee foreigners. It's still happening. I'm quite alarmed to read in the Daily Colonist just last month, in April, that a Japanese university has purchased, for $260,000, an 80-acre ranch at Cedar — right here on Vancouver Island, just south of Nanaimo — for use in its agricultural extension programme. I don't think that we can afford in this province to keep losing more and more land to absentee foreigners.

The least you can do at this stage, Mr. Minister.... I have a bill on the order paper asking that the sale of land be prohibited, but I am asking you now that two or three additional people be hired on a temporary basis to continue the analysis started in 1974 as a result of the amendment to the Land Registry Act requiring people to state their citizenship. I think maybe the results of a further study on this, Mr. Minister, will perhaps convince you and your colleagues that it is time to bring in legislation which will, in fact, prohibit the sale of land in B.C. to absentee foreigners.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to respond to some of the points that have been made by various of the hon. members.

First, I do owe a response to the member for North Vancouver, the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), who raised a question in the House a few days back concerning the possibilities of avoidance of the proceedings under the Landlord and Tenant Act, and specifically referred to Wall and Redekop Corp, and the rentalsman. I'd like to inform the hon. member that my information is that the company concerned will not be proceeding until the legal question is clarified. They have been meeting with the rentalsman and the rentalsman has requested a legal

[ Page 1327 ]

opinion concerning the matter. So I gather it is under control at the present time. That's the only information I have in response to your question.

The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and also North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) talked about the community of property. As all members of the House are aware we have the Berger report; there is also the federal report. This is very far from an uncomplicated area. What we, of course, wish to be very careful in doing is that, if we are going to propose areas of reform, we wish to make sure they will do just that and not create other avenues of abuse. Right now, the Berger report, as I have indicated to other people, people who have seen me and who have written me and also to other members of the government...it is not a report that is going to be left on the shelf. We are going to look at it and we are going to attempt to come up with something that will do the job. At the present time, though, I would like to impress upon the ladies in this House and in British Columbia that there are some protections available. I refer them specifically to the Married Women's Property Act, where it is possible for a person to file an entry or protection against land. Even though a wife doesn't have a registered interest in it, there is protection under the Homestead Act, under the divorce Act. Under the new divorce Act, of course, the court has the power to grant lump-sum settlements which heretofore it did not have. Under the amendments to the Administration Act that came in, I think, a couple of years ago, it is possible for a common-law spouse to make a claim against an estate. So I think that the law is certainly taking the position of — what will I say? — becoming more flexible than the more rigid stand that heretofore was practised. Hopefully, that flexibility is one that will continue.

Before the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) stands up and asks whether or not this is bearing in mind the Murdoch case in the Supreme Court of Canada, we are aware of that decision and certainly of the difficulty it has created. As a matter of fact, I think that it has brought a great deal of awareness of the problem to the Canadian public. I think it was very useful from that point of view.

Concerning the reciprocal enforcement of custody orders, we are hopeful to have legislation dealing with that point in this session.

The patriation of the constitution — this is a matter that is under continuing review and negotiation as you know, Mr. Member. Perhaps by the time the hon. Premier's estimates come to the floor of the House, we might be in a position to provide you with more information than we can today.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), I thank her for sending over to me some of the extracts she was referring to, the multiple-listing documents. She has made some very valid points dealing with that. We are looking forward, of course, eventually to the full consideration of the report which was requested by the former administration from Dr. Rosenbluth.

The book that madam member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) referred to — that was an excellent booklet. I must say Women and The Law in the province of British Columbia — I was not aware that a revision had been requested, I was rather surprised to hear that the former administration did not concede to that request. It certainly seems to be a very valuable suggestion; it's certainly one that I intend to look into as soon as I possibly can.

We don't want to create a multiplicity of material, I suppose. We can't have five or six or seven or eight organizations producing their own little interpretations and synopses of law at government expense. If they wish to do it themselves, fine and dandy, but I don't think we can have them all across the country. But what has happened in the past while is indeed of value.

AN HON. MEMBER: That'll help.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who am I being heckled by today? Oh! (Laughter.) You never know whether you're getting it in the back or in the front in this House, do you?

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I can certainly tell you one thing: something must have been pretty dormant over the last three years. I've got enough on my plate now to last me certainly for the lifetime of this government. If I could possibly bring in all of the reforms that have been suggested here, it might end up being called "the golden age of law in B.C." But I can assure you we're going to try to do our very best.

I think I'd like to hear from some other members. We've heard a great deal from some, and a lot of members do wish to speak so I'll sit down for the moment.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, through you to the....

lnterjections.

MR. ROGERS: I didn't realize he'd moved, I would like to bring up the subject, if we could, for a moment of foreign land sales within the province — specifically California, the Caribbean, Arizona — the type of land speculation and promotion that we've seen go on in this province for the last 10 or 15 years in supermarket parking lots and at the Pacific National Exhibition at not only exhibition time but

[ Page 1328 ]

during the various home shows and recreational shows.

It's my understanding that at the present time all that's required is that the promoters file a prospectus with the correct authorities. They need not be licensed salesmen — real estate salesmen. They just go ahead and sell you a lot on any piece of beach on any of the islands or any of the countries in Latin America that they happen to have some subdivided land on. Generally there's no question about the fact that the land does in fact exist, but the accessibility of the land leaves a lot to be desired.

The people who are predominantly hurt by these types of promotions are people who can ill afford it, who have some dream for some forsaken reason, of having a piece of land in the British Honduras or on San Andres Island, or one of those other places. They don't realize the difficulty in getting to these places. My previous occupation took me around to several of these developments, and I can tell you they are disgraceful. There are a lot of families who have suffered great financial hardship as a result of just exactly such promotions.

One of them I can remember exists somewhere between Phoenix and Tucson. I think the name of the thing was Arizona City. Their development was that the Phoenix-Tucson area was going to become bigger than Los Angeles and if only the people of Vancouver and of British Columbia would buy a chunk of it now they'd be set come time the boom. Their operation was to invite you to dinner and there would be three people sitting at the table; the husband, the wife and a salesman. They presented a roast beef dinner, along with the usual slide show and sales pitch, and halfway through the dinner, just as long as everybody was warmed up properly, someone would deliver a telegram. The telegram was a rather worn piece of yellow paper and the president of the corporation had announced that pressure was so great that the lots were going up $500 each at midnight. Well, it was the same line every night....

MR. WALLACE: A recycled telegram.

MR. ROGERS: Yes, it was a recycled telegram, Mr. Member. And, of course, people buy that sort of thing.

In most cases the people never see the land. They see beautiful pictures of palm trees or whatever — they happen to be selling cactus if it's Arizona — and these people buy the property on a never-never plan, The salesman gets his commission on the first 10 to 15 payments and he's out of it. And what happens? The land falls back. Eventually the people stop paying for it when they realize they've been duped.

There's one that's advertised on television right now that's only 150 miles from Reno, Nevada. Well, if you took a protractor and drew a circle of 150 miles around Reno you would have some of the most colourful moose pasture without the moose anywhere in the world. It is really desolate country there.

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: Five miles outside of Reno is bad enough. So we're really selling people a false hope.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): How about in Reno?

MR. ROGERS: Yes, even in Reno itself. (Laughter.) Well, I don't know; $1,500 an acre maybe in town, but nothing else. The people who are hurt are the people who are easily duped, and it's very unfortunate.

As I said, the typical pattern is that the salesman gets his commission off the first five or six payments and then he's out of it and the developers are gone. They will come to the ombudsman, they'll come to their MLAs, and they'll come to anybody else crying this sad story, and what do you say — "the province doesn't need to be a babysitter!"?

The solution is quite simple. That is that if we had the sales of foreign land, when it's being done on this basis, done through licensed realtors within this province — and, Lord knows, there are enough licensed realtors — then we have the privilege, or at least the power of persuasion, of lifting their licence and lifting the licence of the firm if they, in fact, have duped the people. In most cases, they have.

Many of these lots, of course, are without water, without power, streets, curbs or anything else. In fact, in many cases they are totally inaccessible, especially the ones in Belize, or British Honduras as most people know it.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are you against free enterprise?

MR. ROGERS: Now, Mr. Member, what a silly question! They don't have free enterprise in the British Honduras.

Interjections.

MR. ROGERS: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Attorney-General, I would like you to....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Is it expensive enterprise?

MR. ROGERS: The expansion of bureaucracy aside, I would like you to consider putting that in.

MR. LAUK: I'm delighted to see that the member

[ Page 1329 ]

for Vancouver South is admitting that...

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 101 please.

MR. LAUK: ...regulation of the free market system, as he supports it, is necessary from time to time...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. LAUK: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, is this not the Attorney-General's estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the Attorney-General's estimates. We are on vote 10, please.

MR. LAUK: Did not the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) direct his mind to the Attorney-General's estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. LAUK: I am asking the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, certainly it's necessary to regulate the foreign ownership of land within this province, and also the reprehensible kind of situation that was described by the first member for Vancouver South, and that is an interference in the free-market system. It is a protection for consumers and people who cannot protect themselves, a policy advocated by this party and a policy that was rejected by the Social Credit convention prior to the election of that party on December 11. The member is obviously not aware of the convention that was opposed to the foreign ownership of land in British Columbia, and unaware of the general philosophy of that party which leaves the free-market system to such an extent that the ordinary persons of this province suffer at the hands of flim-flam artists and con men.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Chairman, that that party is philosophically opposed to any kind of interference in that kind of a system, a system which dupes ordinary people, that takes away their savings in the same way that the convention of the Social Credit Party voted against interfering with foreign ownership of land in this province when acres and acres of our valuable land are being alienated to people who are not even citizens of this country, let alone residents of the province.

The hon. Attorney-General was asked a question by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), and which I regard as a serious breach of the law. The section on the use of Her Majesty's coat of arms representing the province is quite clear, and the use of the coat of arms on that propaganda sheet was deliberately designed to deceive the public that the piece of propaganda was an official document of some description.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. member please withdraw the remark that it was "deliberately designed to deceive"?

MR. LAUK: No, I will not, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: The coat of arms on the document in question was, in my view, designed to deceive the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has been in the House long enough to know that he cannot use that phraseology.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I can use what phraseology I like, as long as it doesn't impugn an improper motive to any member of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's very obvious to the Chair that it could easily be interpreted to have exactly that meaning. "Deliberately designed to deceive, " I think, is a terminology that cannot be used.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I do not know who produced that pamphlet.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Oh, come on!

MR. LAUK: I don't know who produced it. I assume that no hon. member in this House would lend their name to the production of that pamphlet. If they do — if someone will stand up today in this committee and say so — I will withdraw the remark, but not until then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will assure the House, then, that he was not impugning any motive to any member of this House by making that statement?

MR. LAUK: Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman. I assume that no hon. member of this House would lend their name to the production of that pamphlet that was deliberately designed to deceive the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now please, Hon. Member, we cannot impugn improper motives to any member of this House.

MR. LAUK: I am not.

[ Page 1330 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the member is treading very, very closely to the border. I would suggest that you take your debate a little farther from the border.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks. I will not, and I do not, intend to impugn improper motives to any member of this House. If any member wishes to associate their name with the production of that pamphlet, they should do so now. Then I will withdraw the remark.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that use of the coat of arms is a breach of the statute, and I expect that the Attorney-General will immediately investigate, and if the evidence supports such a charge, a charge under the Coat of Arms Act will be laid.

Another question that should be asked of the Attorney-General in these estimates.... I appreciate that it is in the twilight hours of his estimates and he is very tired — he's had to listen to lengthy speeches...

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am enjoying them.

MR. LAUK: ...all of them brilliantly presented by the opposition members. Nevertheless, it is in the twilight hours of his estimates, but there are some matters that occur to me that are important and which I do not think the estimates should pass without some comment.

The Landlord and Tenant Act was designed by the NDP administration to protect those people whose usual residences involve a tenancy. One of the problems that arises in Vancouver Centre, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, is the use of hotels, or so-called hotels, as a permanent residence, usually by members who live in what is described as the downtown east-side district of Vancouver Centre. We feel that people who use this hotel space.... I wonder if the Attorney-General could give me his attention just for a moment. Thank you very much.

These hotels are being used as permanent residences by these individuals, and they are subject to arbitrary decisions by hotel owners who are, in substance and for all purposes in reality, landlords under the Landlord and Tenant Act. If there is any legal loophole by which these landlords escape their responsibilities to tenants, as is provided for under the Landlord and Tenant Act, I would hope that the Attorney-General will plug those loopholes.

An attempt was made last June to amend the Act. If that amendment is not enforceable, then something should be, definitely, because it is a great cost to the public purse, and particularly the public purse of the province of British Columbia.

These individuals sometimes rent a room and are thrown out on some other legitimate or illegitimate cause and their rent is forfeit to the landlord without recourse to the Landlord and Tenant Act or to the rentalsman. These people immediately go to the welfare department, pick up some more money and go and rent a hotel room in some other hotel.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What do you mean it's forfeited, Gary? I don't follow you.

MR. LAUK: Well, there is a body of evidence, and I'm sure your deputy can point this out to you because it goes back as long ago as a year where tenants in these hotels, who intend to use them as a permanent residence and do, are....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do they pay monthly?

MR. LAUK: Well, they pay whatever they can, when they can, but it's really a month-to-month...or a tenancy of that description. But what happens is that the landlord, or the hotel owner, feels that he's not subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act, and he can — if, let's say, the tenant appears to be intoxicated or he may make a little noise — without notice evict the tenant from the hotel room. In a lot of cases, the rent is not refunded. The rent is paid in advance and it's not refunded. These individuals.... There is evidence of this; the rentalsman can provide you with that kind of evidence. So could other people of official capacity in the downtown east-side district,

Now this is a reprehensible kind of thing. It's not properly policed. It's regrettable that we did not come to grips with it. We thought we had in June. I'm informed now that the amendment isn't working or at least it's not being enforced. I ask the Attorney-General to turn his mind to that because these people are entitled to the same protection that the rest of the citizens of British Columbia are, that the rest of the tenants of British Columbia are.

I think it is important that these people are not ripped off, because what happens is that it goes down the line to the welfare department. The department see this person. They've given him rent money. He says: "Well, what can I do? The landlord took my rent money and they've thrown me out and I need a place to stay." They issue another cheque or find the person another place to stay. Now I'm sure that the landlords that are culpable in this regard are few, but if there are any, that's one too many. And I would ask the Attorney-General to look into this matter.

In addition, if the law is not working, we can not bring in a law during this session, Mr. Chairman, that would for all time settle this matter that people who are living in those hotel rooms belong and do have the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act, that they cannot be evicted without cause, that they must have proper notice and that rent increases be forthcoming in accordance with the law?

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a serious situation

[ Page 1331 ]

arising in British Columbia with respect to legal aid. I had hoped that the explanation of the Attorney-General would be an adequate one, and I have listened carefully throughout the debate in his estimates with respect to the provision of legal aid. One of the reasons that I, and many other people in our party, became active in our party was that several...many, many years ago when legal aid was practically, for all purposes non-existent, we felt that the very protection of our system and our way of life in this country and in this province was a stake, that legal aid was just that essential.

I noticed with interest this morning the comments of a very distinguished member of the Vancouver bar, a man by the name of Frank Maczko, who as many others of his character do, has left a productive and lucrative practice, if I might say so, to go and serve the public in some capacity or another. Mr. Maczko has been director of the Legal Aid Society in British Columbia. In his term of office, the Legal Aid Society has expanded from a very fledgling organization and a very fledgling service to one that I believe has become second to none in the country. Unfortunately the recent steps, by virtue of the budgetary cutbacks of this government, have put legal aid in this province back about 10 years, and I'll tell you why.

Now Mr. Maczko made the argument this morning in this morning's Vancouver Province that for every $1 the government spends on legal aid, the people of this province receive $5 worth of legal service. I think that that probably is a conservative estimate. Nevertheless, that estimate is correct.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The English system of justice, Mr. Chairman, as adopted by Canada, is second to none in the world if every citizen has access to legal counsel without financial barriers. If he is denied counsel for any reason, he is unlikely to receive equal justice, equality before the law. It's absolutely essential to our system. We must not allow the wealthy a privileged position before the law, an advantage in court over the poor. Otherwise it brings the law and the administration of justice into general disrespect. The efforts of the bar and the NDF administration brought the concept of equality before the law close to reality by giving greater access to the poor to legal counsel. Because of these cutbacks, legal aid services, as I say, will be put back 10 years at least.

I understand the Attorney-General quoted a figure that suggested that because we've got an increase in budgetary expenses for legal services over the years from $50,000 we're progressing. He quoted a $50,000 figure for legal aid that was more than 10 years ago, when legal aid, for all practical purposes, was non-existent.

The NDP believes in the rule of law and that criminals must be dealt with firmly, but we believe that a criminal should not have a greater advantage over the poor because he is wealthy, and that those who are charged with offences, rich or poor, should have an opportunity to a full and fair defence, not always available without access to legal counsel.

The hon. Attorney-General refers to some sort of financial crisis, but I put it to him, Mr. Chairman, that it is a question of priorities in this government. It is a question of priorities. Although we have sat here and heard of the cutbacks in other departments, we cannot see that a great effort has been made through the overall budget to curtail expenditures. But at the same time, even though a relatively small amount of money would keep the legal aid service up to par, it has been cut back. The argument that there is no money is specious, when spending in other areas of government has not been, apparently, curtailed. The same argument applies to the current labour dispute at the Vancouver General Hospital, just to use an analogy. Here we are, arguing a case in this House, in this Legislature, that really it is a two-party argument between labour and the VGH, when all along it was this government's cutbacks that created the labour dispute in the first place and are causing the hardship in the community.

I draw that analogy to point out that the same situation prevails with legal aid. The crisis is not as apparent in legal aid., I suppose, as it is in the community at large as far as health services are concerned, but when you're charged with an offence — and some of these people, I presume, are innocent — and you are alone and without money and without friends, a legal aid lawyer becomes the most important thing in the world to you, and a legal aid lawyer by his or her very presence, in representing that accused person, creates respect for the law and equality before the law.

The government has chosen, as I say, Mr. Chairman, to choke off the added funds to legal aid and to hospitals. That is the direct cause for the labour dispute in the hospital situation, and it is a cause of great concern not only to people who may be charged with offences, but to the bar itself. The Attorney-General, I would suggest, should not throw up his hands and say: "Oh, well, there is no money." The taxes have been increased in this province. Charges on insurance rates and ferries and hydro have been increased. Surely that has relieved the government treasury. And for what purpose? What is the end design of cutting off legal aid and hospital services and of increasing taxes? Is the end design to create a surplus so large that in an election year we can give back what we should have been giving throughout the years previous?

I would ask the Attorney-General to refer to the introduction of the report of the Attorney-General dated 1975, on page 9, where a distinguished member

[ Page 1332 ]

of his department states:

"The role of the Attorney-General is quite distinct from that of any other cabinet minister in the history of our system. He is not only the head of a department, and thereby obliged to advance the interests of his department among his cabinet colleagues in caucus and in the Legislature; he must also be able to advise government and provide legal opinions, irrespective of the political implications and independent of the political consequences that might result either to his department or to the government generally."

To me, Mr. Chairman, that is one of the most important statements one can make about this man's particular role as Attorney-General in this province. I would urge him to reconsider the funding of legal aid. There is a danger in this province that we will lose the many devoted members of the bar and other persons who are presently involved in the legal aid service. There is that danger that the legal aid service will collapse, and I don't think, the amount of saving represented is worth that.

In closing, I have a telegram that has been sent by the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

"The provincial council of the British Columbia branch adopted the following resolution at its meeting May 1, 1976:

"Whereas the provincial council of the British Columbia branch of the Canadian bar, at a council meeting at Vancouver on February 22, passed a resolution recognizing that the delivery of legal services should remain independent of government, that a person ought not to be deprived of essential legal service by lack of funds, and that the burden of providing these legal services to the disadvantaged should be borne by the community as a whole, and

"Whereas the provincial government has reduced the budget of the Legal Services Commission, as a result of which the Legal Services Commission and the Legal Aid Society have been forced to cut back severely their programmes of delivery of legal services to the disadvantaged, particularly the poor,

"Be it resolved that the provincial council of the B.C. branch of the Canadian bar deplores the effect which the limitation of the Legal Services Commission budget to $7 million must have on the disadvantaged members of the public, and to ensure that justice can be done in both criminal and civil matters, urges in the strongest terms that the Province of British Columbia make available sufficient funds to enable legal services provided by legal aid and other agencies through funding from the Legal Services Commission to be maintained at not less than the levels that were reached in 1975."

Mr. Chairman, the bar association is concerned. I think there are many people in the community who are concerned. I think it's unfortunate that cutbacks are made without adequate research. I don't think, with great respect to the Attorney-General, that enough study has been made of the impact of such cutbacks to the legal aid service system in this province. It has made it overnight in last position in the country rather than in first position. There is no problem with assuming that, because when you tinker with the criteria for providing legal aid, you destroy the whole concept of legal aid, and you destroy the whole concept of equality before the law.

I would urge the Attorney-General to recant. I would urge him to be more forceful in cabinet. I would urge him to remind himself of the words of one of his own distinguished employees, as reported on page 9 of the report that has just been tabled in this House. He must stand for equality before the law. He must stand for that kind of situation in this House, but also in the cabinet room. He must resist any attempts to whittle away at the tremendous gains — not gains of the NDP administration, but the gains of the bar and the ordinary people of this province who have struggled to make equality before the law a reality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Attorney-General.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just a....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: After you get your Liberal card! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Would you like to go ahead, Jim?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want your Liberal card?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General defers to the member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few words. I have to go to another meeting, so it's going to be very brief, but I do want to say how amused I was at the statements from that member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) when he talked about the possibility of breach of a statute because of the usage of the coat of arms of British Columbia. Certainly I agree that care should be used against possible abuses, but I never forget, Mr. Chairman, the kind of abuses that took place by his party a few years ago when they churned

[ Page 1333 ]

out the Gestetner in the far corner with a little propaganda sheet, a little distortion sheet going all around the province, Mr. Chairman, with the coat of arms of British Columbia, called MLAs at Work. I don't know if that's still published today, but it had the coat of arms. Can you imagine the gall of that member, Mr. Chairman, to bring up any possible breaches of the statutes?

MR. LAUK: Wrong again!

MR. CHABOT: We're discussing vote 10, the salary of the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia, who has to do with the rights of individuals.

I want to ask a question, Mr. Chairman, as to whether the government is contemplating the introduction of a B.C. bill of rights to protect people in this province against the ravages and excesses of big government.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: I like the first member for Vancouver-Burrard saying "Hear, hear!", but I want to say that in 1973 in the throne speech the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia indicated at that time that there was going to be a B.C. bill of rights. Well, we are now in the year of our Lord 1976 and nothing has been done, despite the promise in that Speech from the Throne, Mr. Chairman.

We've seen other promises as well that were not fulfilled by that government in the three and a half years they were in office. How embarrassing it must be to the Lieutenant-Governor to hear these promises always being made and never carried out. The promise regarding the B.C. bill of rights was made in the spring session of 1973. Now I know that this government has committed itself to the introduction of the services of an ombudsman for this province. I wonder if we are going to go beyond the service of an ombudsman and introduce a genuine B.C. bill of rights as a code by which the ombudsman can be directed under certain circumstances so that the people of British Columbia will, once and for all, recognize what their rights are.

I have a couple of other brief questions I would like to ask the Attorney-General which I'll ask at a later time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thank the member for Columbia River for his excellent suggestion and address.

MR. LEA: The old back-bench buck-the-government routine.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, we don't have to do that in this party, my friend.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was making some very valid points about the policing requirements and the need for an officer full time on Quadra. That certainly seems to be a most reasonable request. Dealing with the policing of Campbell River, this of course is something that is within the municipal boundaries, and this is one of the reasons that we are fighting and trying to get a better deal from Ottawa on the overall police contract.

Concerning the Provincial Coat of Arms Act, I'm pleased to tell the House that I'll be requesting an opinion as to whether or not the publication in question does not contravene the statute.

Insofar as the Land Registry Act is concerned I noted the remarks of the member for Comox dealing with the registration of contractors, the licensing and bonding of contractors. This is a very difficult area — now to define a contractor — and it could well work a great deal of hardship, particularly on the small contractor. There would not be any difficulty at all in obtaining the bonding or the licensing or registration of what have you of larger contractors, but dealing with the small ones it would be difficult to do. But as I informed the member before, in my discussion with her, and I believe in correspondence I sent to her, it's a matter that's not going to be lost or forgotten and we're going to again look at it.

Now dealing with legal aid, I really think I'd be unnecessarily taking the time of the House to just repeat some of the matters that I've said before. But as all members in here stated, it is a question of priority. It is a question of dollars available. It is a question as to whether or not we should perhaps be giving more attention to the victims of crime than those people who commit the crimes.

The legal aid has come up from $220,000 in 1970 to $5.1 million this year and, as I said on Friday — or was it Thursday; I've now forgotten — we're indeed going to do our level best to see if it's possible to try to arrange for some more dollars, but not necessarily through the government.

The Legal Services Commission is an autonomous commission. If there's any way that they feel that they can pare some of their budget, make more money available for the Legal Aid Society, fine. But the total amount of money — however you look at it, hon. members, and we've got to understand this — is $7 million already allocated from the government for essentially legal aid services. Some of it is preventive medicine. Some of it is primarily for criminal aid. Some is allocated to the family tariff, and so forth, native programmes, native court workers, and I went through these figures before. I don't think I'm going to serve too much in the debate to repeat them.

I also informed the House of the fact that we're not getting the kind of deal that I'd like to see B.C. getting from the federal government. They clogged

[ Page 1334 ]

the system to one extent through the process. The burden of payment is primarily upon the provincial side because they're contributing about 75 cents for these legal aid programmes. Yet the per capita cost is $3. So they're contributing 25 per cent and the province is contributing the 75 per cent.

It's not fair, I think, for anyone to suggest — I know the arguments that the member for Vancouver Centre meant, and I'm sorry you weren't in; I did answer some of your questions — that a person is without legal redress without legal aid. That's not correct. I mean, we've got to remember that there is such a thing as a judge. People in this province are receiving fair trials.

I would like to be able to say that we can extend it, but we cannot have open-end legal aid.

MR. LAUK: Who's saying that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, I'm just telling you, my friend, what we can't have.

Now the position that has been taken by B.C. is not a different one. It's even taken by the extremely wealthy province of Ontario. In a report of March 10 this year, which is a report of the proceedings of the benches of the Law Society, Mr. McMurty who is the Attorney-General for Ontario, said that every branch of government is facing severe financial constraints and that the legal aid plan would in future have to be funded by a finite budget. Hitherto the cost of the plan has depended chiefly on how many members of the public made use of it. He also said that the society must be vigilant to guard against waste and abuse within the plan.

There has been some of that in B.C., as the former Attorney-General well knows. Convocation adopted the legal aid committee's recommendations that the society should advise the Attorney-General of its readiness to assist in implementing the government's decision to control the cost of legal aid. Administrative costs are going to be closely monitored by the society in Ontario including the supervision of persons taking part in the delivery of services. Seizing every opportunity to save such expense will not be enough to achieve the financial results the government requires. It will be necessary in addition for the government to establish, as a matter of policy, measures to limit, or even eliminate, some legal aid services now being provided.

British Columbia is facing the same constraints, and, as I've said before, it's not possible under the budgetary restrictions that are facing us to have an open-end legal aid system operating in B.C.

Part of the major problem that is being experienced, I think, by the legal aid society now — I say part of the problem — is the fact that it's sort of.... I can't say that they had a carte blanche before, but it was to an extent open-ended, and they're carrying on now providing services that they were committed to beforehand and finding a shortage of dollars.

Now I'm very hopeful that we're going to be able to work something out, darned hopeful that we're going to be able to work something out, but, as I say, I can't give a commitment of government funds. The budget is $7 million, as you see in your estimate book. The Law Foundation will be making contributions to it. Maybe there'll be an opportunity for even a few more federal dollars. We're going to try anything we can but, insofar as this commitment is concerned, it's committed to this extent of money. This extent of money will continue to provide some very, very good legal aid services in B.C. And on the basis of last year's figures, it does not amount to a cutback.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has been trying for a long time to get to his feet.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): I was beginning to feel like one of my kid's yo-yos which we have seen around the house lately.

I've been most pleased by the Attorney-General's statement in respect to organized crime in hockey. I want this House to know that I grew up on skates, moccasins and snowshoes on the Prairies, have coached and played hockey all my life, and I love hockey.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you wear helmets?

MR. LOEWEN: We didn't wear helmets; we wore Eaton's catalogues around out knees when we started out.

MR. LAUK: Then they took away the Eaton's catalogue.

MR. LOEWEN: Then they took away the Eaton's catalogue — time doesn't stand still. However, I love the game of hockey. I love competitive sports and love team sports, and particularly the sport of hockey. I believe that hockey is one of the most beautiful sports in the world. I believe it is a sport that belongs to Canada and, personally, I believe it's Canada's national sport. What has happened to our game, our Canadian game of hockey, is a disgusting shame.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. LOEWEN: I'm most pleased with our Attorney-General's statements in respect to violence in hockey, and that he joins the Attorney-General of Ontario, Hon. Mr. McMurtry, in his position on

[ Page 1335 ]

hockey. I'd like to point out to the House that not only the Attorney-General of Ontario but many of the city councillors in the city of Toronto took a position because many of their arenas were used by minor and junior hockey systems. They took a position and said that these municipal arenas would not be used any longer unless hockey cleans up its act.

I want the House to know that I'm not a do-gooder or bleeding heart, because when I coached hockey...there's nothing like the physical contact and close checking, as we call it. It is extremely important in hockey, but there are certain individuals in organized, professional hockey who believe that it's entertaining when we see the fisticuffs, when the players start bench-clearing brawls and start using their sticks over each other's heads.

I did over the weekend what has possibly been the only fair poll that I know of in Canada in respect to the public support of violence in hockey. I asked one of the taxi-cab companies in Vancouver to do a poll. The question they asked was: do you support violence in professional hockey? I could have worded the question a different way to be more fair to my own position. However, this question was asked, and 112 people said they do not support and do not enjoy the violence in professional hockey. And 24 voted yes.

I hold people like Coach Crozier and Coach Shero from Philadelphia and Coach McLean in New Westminster responsible for what we are seeing in much of hockey today. In fact, for a guy who loves hockey very, very much to have to tell his son, and to encourage his son not to play — I'll tell you that that hurts. That really hurts. But that's the situation today.

I suggest, hon. members, and I hope somebody's copying this down, there are three rules that professionals support and not the Attorney-General, incidentally three rules that would change the circulation in our professional and minor sport entirely.

These three rules are: (1) Any player who removes his gloves for the purpose of doing physical battle be suspended from that game immediately. Now for those of you who do not understand hockey, as soon as gloves drop to the ice, it is very easy for the referee to pick up any gloves and find out who they belong to, so it would be a very easy situation.

(2) Any player using his stick or skates in such a way as to cause a penalty and an injury be immediately suspended from that game and subject to indefinite suspension, subject to the seriousness of that particular situation.

(3) That the coaches and the team management be responsible for the conduct of the players on the ice.

These three rules, if they were put into the rule book, would immediately reverse the situation that we have today, and we would once again to able to encourage our kids to be involved in hockey. As we all know, today hockey is one of the most popular sports in Canada. However, there is such a tremendous parental concern that it is time we as legislators do something about it and take some action, Secondly, it just might have a influence in helping us regain our pride in our national hockey team internationally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that has been dealt with to some degree, but I would like to comment on the Victoria scene, is the question of juvenile detention.

We have heard a great deal from both points of view as to whether we should be more sever or less severe, and the inadequacy of facilities. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the diligence of the Attorney-General in corresponding with me on the Willingdon facility for girls, which is to be converted and re-used, I hope, in a more enlightened manner than it was in years gone by. In that respect the minister has assured me by letter than in fact there will be a much more reasonable approach taken in the development of the facilities at Willingdon and that a satisfactory agreement has been reached with the BCIT authorities in the sharing of the facilities.

I would like to refer to the juvenile detention centre in Victoria. That centre can accommodate anything from seven or eight young people up to 23 or 24. The minister may be astounded to learn that there is absolutely no medical service arrangements for that facility. Some of the young people are brought in there in bad physical and mental condition — some of them, unfortunately, are not even clean — and create very serious problems for the staff operating the juvenile detention centre. That is on Cook Street, Mr. Chairman, in conjunction with the family court and health unit.

I think we should be indebted to one of our aldermen in the city of Victoria, Helen Beirnes, who drew this matter to the attention of the authorities last week and pointed out that these young offenders can be taken to that centre suffering from physical or mental disease, from infectious disease, from venereal disease, from other conditions such as pregnancy in young teenaged girls, and there is no arrangement for any regular medical examination of those persons so detailed. The procedure in the past, I am told, has been to really wait until a crisis situation is reached and then you rush the young person to one of the emergency departments of one of the local hospitals.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that this has been going on before the present Attorney-General came to office, so I am eager to make this a positive suggestion outside of the political arena. But there is a serious need for the funding to be made available to provide medical supervision, regular medical examination and

[ Page 1336 ]

a better assurance that, particularly, infectious diseases introduced into the institution by one or other inmates, obviously will not be spread to others. The whole question of the younger female inmate and the question of problems such as undetected pregnancy, and so on, are also very serious matters.

While the matter is being researched at the municipal level, because I understand the facility is owned by the province and managed by the core municipalities.... I think it is somewhat regretful that the particular committee — the municipal committee responsible for this situation — has just been re-established. Because of the very active and conscientious nature of the chairman, the lady I mentioned, the matter has been brought to public scrutiny.

Now I visited the institution today, as a matter of fact, and I still wonder. I am leaving the specific medical issue aside for a moment, which I am sure the Attorney-General will look into. But again, I have to ask....

HON. MR. GARDOM: If somebody goes there and declares himself sick, and they take him and give....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Perhaps I should just clarify the issue for the Attorney-General. This is the juvenile offender, unmanageable, who is referred there by the order of the bench — by a justice of the peace, presumably, or a judge. But the individual juvenile cannot just be taken by anyone and admitted there. Although the gentleman in charge, who seemed a very enlightened — and I want to comment about something on that respect in a moment — made the point that parents often do, not often, turn up with their offspring and just say to them: "We can't handle this youngster; would you take him?" Fortunately our society isn't that flexible and these young offenders are all referred by some arm of the courts to be restrained in this particular institution.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sir, can I ask you a question? I didn't quite understand the medical issue you are raising. You mean that if a child goes there and complains of an illness, nothing is done? Or do you mean there is not a routine checkup?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I just clarify that? I really don't know what happens if a person makes a complaint of a physical ailment. The point I was really trying to stress is that many of these young people have no next-of-kin or no identifiable next-of-kin, and they have been living in circumstances which are basically unhealthy in terms of cleanliness and hygiene and exposure to infection. They have had and have encountered cases where infections were present when the child or young offender was admitted, but no specific routine medical checkup is carried out. Quite often the lay administrators or the lay management of the detention centre finish up being diagnosticians or making medical decisions which are not only difficult but.... On many occasions, I am told, the young offender refuses, perhaps quite rightly, to discuss medical conditions with the non-medical person.

The health situation, I think, Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General has understood the point I am making, is one aspect of the centre, but the other aspect which still leaves me very unhappy is the actual kind of facility. We have heard that the very bare and punitive cells at the Willingdon School for Girls will be reorganized or redesigned and that there will be a much more humane type of restraint applied to the young offender. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if he could give us some idea, in more specific terms, as to what kind of alternative facility is intended for Willingdon and whether or not the kind of cell that I visited today at a juvenile centre in Victoria is just simply to be repeated.

I can add the final note in that regard. In the basement of the juvenile centre in Victoria there are two rooms which I think would probably contravene even the United Nations general charter on humanity or inhumanity. In the basement of the juvenile centre, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, there are two rooms with four solid brick walls with no daylight whatever, eight feet long, four feet wide, at the bottom of a stairway, which were used as solitary confinement for young offenders.

When I was shown these rooms, all that was in the ceiling was a small, rather dim light. The ventilation is appalling. The mental impression you get the minute you walk in there is that it just has to be the most inhuman kind of atmosphere to impose on anyone, regardless of whether they have committed a crime or whatever. It seems to me that if someone is so unmanageable under the age of 17 that they have to be isolated within four solid brick walls, no daylight, precious little air, a toilet in the cell and metal supports for only a mattress, then I think our hope of dealing with the seriously disturbed juvenile offender in any kind of successful way is absolutely futile.

I can think of no easier or quicker way to convert the disturbed juvenile offender into an adult psychotic. Now to give credit to Mr. Phillips who showed me around the centre, I want to make it very plain that he has issued an order that under no circumstances are these two isolation cells to be used in the basement. If a juvenile offender is so disturbed that somebody thinks that's the way to deal with it, then he believes there is great urgency in having medical assessment and having the individual juvenile treated at a mental hospital or at some facility which will more accurately determine the underlying cause

[ Page 1337 ]

of the child's behaviour.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, much as we all deplore some of the social costs of juvenile offences, it would be, I think, a great pity if we lost sight of the word "juvenile." After all, the essential meaning of the word "juvenile" is that they are young people growing into maturity and having difficulties conforming to society. While I have no wish to suggest that we shouldn't take cognizance of the serious problem of juvenile offences, I would like some assurance....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I just don't want to have to go on repeating this question over and over again. I have asked other questions in the past and I want some more specific answers than we've had from previous governments. That is, the lot of us are giving lip service...awareness, in fact, of the problems of the seriously disturbed juvenile. The point I am trying to make is that to put them in that kind of very oppressive kind of restraint, in my view — and I think in the view of most people dealing with the young offender — I can't see any hope that we are likely to achieve anything with the seriously disturbed juvenile if he or she is to land up in that kind of physical restraint, which it most assuredly is. Again, it's rather like the Wilkinson Road jail that I talked about the other day.

We have come here year after year after year and talk about these problems. We all come forward with a lot of positive and constructive ideas as to how they might be tackled, but then we come back next year and have to make the same speeches all over again because very little has changed. At least from this Attorney-General I've had the assurance in writing that he is dedicated to a more appropriate method of handling the seriously disturbed juveniles by restraining their activities and removing them from society in general, but at the same time I hope he is not committed to just building more modern facilities of exactly the same kind and just simply making the actual physical structure more up to date. We need a newer style or some modification of how these young people are restrained; otherwise it seems unlikely that we're on the right track in trying to find any long-term solution.

Another aspect of the Attorney-General's responsibility somewhat relates to the theme I'm trying to develop, and that is the question of the mentally disturbed offender who finishes up in Riverside. I'm referring particularly to offenders who are found not guilty by reason of insanity and are detained during Her Majesty's pleasure — or whatever the technical phrase is — in Riverside.

A very disturbing seminar was held in Vancouver not long ago, when two or three persons closely related to this particular problem in society were all in agreement that the system is wrong since it very often means that the offender disappears forever and is never heard of again, and is actually worse off than if he had been found guilty, completed his sentence, and returned to society. But the problem still lurks in the minds of many, many people that once you're found to be in a mentally disturbed state you're always mentally disturbed and that it would be dangerous to return you to society. I'm not magnifying anything when I say that. While I don't want to take up a lot of the time of the House, the quotations from the experts are all in the newspapers from that particular seminar.

I would just quickly quote one of the lawyers who's had a great deal to do with the question of the rights of the individual who's found mentally disturbed after committing an offence. His statement is to the effect that in this country people don't know what goes on, the courts don't want to know what goes on, and the patient is left to bureaucracy, sometimes never to be seen again.

To confirm the point, they had three persons who had, in fact, been admitted and confined at Riverside Hospital, one of whom I'd just like to quote. He's mentioned in the letter here just by his first name, Art. I quote:

"The third patient, Art, said he was brought into Riverside nine years ago, as crazy as could be, but he was able to progress until he now works in the electronics shop and takes a correspondence course. He said there is a lack of staff and a lack of everything, but 90 per cent of the people in Riverside told him they wanted more vocational training. Art said most patients understand they cannot be released if they are seriously ill, but they become exasperated when they find themselves incarcerated on a Lieutenant-Governor's warrant while other patients elsewhere in the Riverview complex who have been involved in more serious charges are released because they come under a different category."

In the discussion which took place on that occasion involving Dr. John Duffy, who is the executive director of the provincial forensic services, and Dr. Tony Markus, who is a professor of psychiatry at UBC, they made the point very clear that everybody is just passing the buck on the issue of deciding about a person who may have spent many years in Riverside, who is now certainly not mentally psychotic, but the decision to release that person back into society is essentially a decision of the provincial government, the cabinet.

The Law Reform Commission came in with a report, Mr. Chairman. Back in October of last year the Law Reform Commission pointed out that mentally disturbed persons convicted of crimes

[ Page 1338 ]

should be able to spend all or part of their sentence in a psychiatric facility, and they certainly made the recommendation that the final decision should be removed from cabinet.

This kind of decision is so politically sensitive that the real medical evidence and the change in medical circumstances is either purposely, or for other reasons, overlooked. But certainly the fate of the individual under such a circumstance is to go on living a monotonous and depressing existence within the confines of a place like Riverside Hospital, which, as I say, I won't take the time of the House to describe the facilities there — the lack of recreation and many other activities which would at least make the person's existence a little more tolerable.

I think the last comment on that particular subject that is worth making is to quote again the lawyer who feels not only that the system is wrong but that certain changes might be desirable — and perhaps the Attorney-General could respond.

He talks about the one-shot method of insanity hearings, where he said that the hearings are usually conducted before a provincial court judge who may never even have heard psychiatric evidence before and that there are really no checks or balances to review the medical evidence. Once that person is committed to a place like Riverside, this lawyer states that there is little chance for that person to have his day in court, to have subsequent documentation and subsequent medical evidence and changes in the person's medical circumstances brought into court, with the individual given an opportunity to state his own case.

Review panels are held and I understand that the results of review panels are secret. Even when the recommendation of a review panel is to release the person, this is not made public knowledge either. The whole effect is to very seriously penalize the offender who, at the time of the offence, is considered to be mentally incompetent, and as a result of the subsequent procedures really receives what amounts to an indefinite sentence.

Now we've discussed this matter in the House before and some legislation was brought in which was to guarantee a periodic review of patients in this category. So I'd like — although we've run out of time, I guess.... But if not now, perhaps tomorrow the Attorney-General could check into the situation and report to the House to what degree review of these cases is carried out at appropriate intervals, and whether he is prepared to make recommendations to effect that the decision should be taken away from the cabinet, and that whatever review of the patient's condition is carried out that the recommendation of that review body, however it's instituted, should be the recommendations that are followed and not subject to other influences, particularly political influences in cabinet where ministers are afraid to release the patients for fear of the political ramifications if the offender repeats the offence.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, earlier today I mentioned that I felt that when leave was granted to a minister to make a statement, it had in some instances occurred that two members of one party took place in the debate. I'd refer you to Hansard, June 24,1975, pages 3898 and 3899, in which, in making response to a statement of the Minister of Human Resources, Hansard says that Mr. Bennett, Mr. D.A. Anderson and Mr. Gardom spoke. I believe Mr. Gardom was a member at that point...not wishing to use a name, but the present Attorney-General was a member of the Liberal Party, and Mr. D.A. Anderson was a member of the Liberal Party, so I would ask you to take that into consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I appreciate the fact that you have brought this to my attention. I will be making a statement to this House, probably at the next sitting of this House, concerning a number of matters with regard to ministerial statements and other conduct in the House that I think we should all have the advantage of listening to. I want to give it a little bit more attention before I make that statement.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents the report of the committee on Select Standing Committees of the House, which was taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 1339 ]

APPENDIX

31 Mr. Lockstead asked the lion. the Minister of Transport and Communications the following questions:

1. Has B.C. Ferries issued passes to any individuals, excluding members of the Legislature, for passage between Vancouver Island and the Mainland since December 23, 1975?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what are the names and positions of those receiving passes?

The Hon. Jack Davis replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. To all B.C. Ferries regular employees and the following individuals — General and Mrs. Pearkes; Honourable Walter S. Owen and Mrs. Owen; Mrs. Frank M. Ross; Honourable J. R. Nicholson and Mrs. Nicholson; C.G. Dixon, secretary to Lieutenant-Governor; and Gordon Wayne Earwaker (Jr.), first baby born on ferries (route one only).

"On B.C. Ferries business only — T. Tasaka, district dock engineer, Department of Highways; E. Meads, assistant dock engineer, Department of Highways; I. Goundry, dock maintenance foreman, Department of Highways; Nelson's Laundry (3 passes); Vancouver Island Tourist Services (2 passes); and Owen & Son Cash Register Ltd.

"Union representatives — N. Thornber, L. Gray, P. Marshall, and S.G. Morten.

"The following were deleted from the 1975 list — Executive assistant to the Premier, administrative assistant to the Premier, Captain H.J.C. Terry (member, Ferry Authority), Captain A.M. Peabody (member, Ferry Authority), G.S. Gryson (secretary, Ferry Authority), J.W. Minty (Comptroller General), F.A. MacLean (Chairman, Ferry Committee), and R.D. Higgins (member, Ferry Committee)."

May 3, 1976

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Special Committee appointed March 17 to prepare and report lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House for the present Session begs to report and recommend that the personnel of the Select Standing Committees of the House for the present Session be as follows:

STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS — Messrs. Mussallein (Convener), Barber, Gibson, Haddad, Lauk, Loewen, Macdonald, Rogers, Strongman, Wallace, the Hon. L.A. Williams, the Hon. E.M. Wolfe, Messrs. Bawlf and Davidson.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS — Messrs. Hewitt (Convener), Bawlf, Chabot, Cocke, the Hon. A.V. Fraser, Messrs. Gibson, Lauk, Loewen, the Hon. K. R. Mair, Messrs. Mussallem, Schroeder, Skelly, Stupich, Veitch, Wallace, Rogers, and Kahl.

AGRICULTURE — Messrs. Keinpf (Convener), Bawtree, D'Arcy, Davidson, the Hon. R. H. McClelland, Mr. Mussallem, the Hon. J.A. Nielsen, Messrs. Schroeder, Stupich, Mrs. Wallace, and Mr. Wallace.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING — Messrs. Lloyd (Convener), Barber, Barnes, Bawlf, the Hon. H.A. Curtis, Messrs. Gibson, Hewitt, Kahl, Kerster, Nicolson, and Strongman.

LABOUR AND JUSTICE — Messrs. Shelford (Convener), Bawtree, Ms. Brown, Messrs. D'Arcy, Lloyd, Macdonald, the Hon. K.R. Mair, Mr. Veitch, and the Hon. E.M. Wolfe.

[ Page 1340 ]

APPENDIX

HEALTH, EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES — Mrs. Jordan (Convener), Messrs. Calder, Cocke, Mrs. Dailly, Messrs. Kahl, Kerster, Levi, the Hon. R.H. McClelland, the Hon. P.L. McGeer, Messrs. Schroeder, and Wallace.

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS — Messrs. Kerster (Convener), Barnes, Calder, Davidson, the Hon. Jack Davis, the Hon. A.V. Fraser, Mrs. Jordan, Messrs. Lea, Lockstead, Rogers, and Shelford.

ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES — Messrs. Chabot (Convener), Calder, Gibson., Haddad, Hewitt, Kempf, Lea, Lloyd, the Hon. Grace McCarthy, Ms. Sanford, and Mr. Skelly.

Respectfully submitted.

GRACE M. McCARTHY, Chairman