[ Page 1341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Acceptance of Blair report by hospital industry. Mr. King — 1341

Student summer employment programme. Mr. Wallace — 1342

Policy concerning auto insurance. Mr. Gibson — 1343

Grade 10 school leaving. Mr. Strongman — 1343

Mediation of CUPE dispute. Mr. Stupich — 1343

Food price increases. Ms. Sanford — 1344

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

On vote 10.

Mr. Macdonald — 1345

Mr. Lea — 1345

Mr. Wallace — 1346

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1348

Mr. Lea — 1348

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1349

Mr. Lea — 1349

Mr. Macdonald — 1349

Mr. Lea — 1349

Mr. Wallace — 1350

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1350

Mrs. Dailly — 1351

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1352

Mr. Kempf — 1353

Mr. Nicolson — 1354

Ms. Brown — 1354

Ms. Sanford — 1355

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1355

Mr. Strongman — 1355

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1355

Ms. Brown — 1355

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1355

On vote 11.

Ms. Brown — 1355

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1355

On vote 12.

Mr. Macdonald — 1355

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1355

Mr. Nicolson — 1356

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1356

Mrs. Wallace — 1356

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1356

On vote 13.

Mr. Macdonald — 1356

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1356

On vote 14.

Mr. Macdonald — 1357

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1357

Ms. Brown — 1357

Mr. King — 1357

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1358

Mr. Skelly — 1358

Mr. Nicolson — 1358

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1358

Mr. Lea — 1358

Mr. King — 1358

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1359

Mr. Nicolson — 1359

Mr. Barber — 1360

Ms. Brown — 1361

Mr. D'Arcy — 1362

Mr. Lea — 1362

Mr. Macdonald — 1363

Hon, Mr. Gardom — 1363

Mr. Nicolson — 1363

Mr. Levi — 1363

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1364

Mr. Barber — 1364

Ms. Brown — 1366

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1366

Mr. Nicolson — 1366

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1366

On vote 15.

Mr. Skelly — 1366

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1367

Mrs. Wallace — 1367

On vote 18.

Ms. Brown — 1368

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1368

On vote 19.

Mr. Macdonald — 1368

Mr. Gardom — 1368

On vote 22.

Mr. Macdonald — 1368

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1368

On vote 23.

Mr. Gibson — 1368

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1369

On vote 26.

Mr. Macdonald — 1369

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1370

Mr. Skelly — 1370

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1371

Mr. Skelly — 1371

On vote 25.

Mr. Barnes — 1371

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1372

On vote 26.

Mr. Cocke — 1372

Mr. Skelly — 1372

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1373

Mr. Hewitt — 1373

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1374

Mr. Barnes — 1374

Railway Operation Continuation Act (Bill 22) Hon. Mr. Williams. Introduction and first reading — 1375

Statement

Clarification of procedural matters. Mr. Speaker — 1375

Appendix — 1376

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon are two very important gentlemen. The first is Mr. Clare MacSorley, the son of a former member of this House and Social Credit member for Burnaby, the late Charles MacSorley.

Also seated in the gallery today is a gentleman who is well known to most British Columbians and to all those involved in sports and municipal affairs, and certainly to the media. Currently he is involved in a most successful community self-help crime-prevention programme in Burnaby, which is unique in the world, through his capacity as president of the Burnaby Rotary Club in conjunction with the Burnaby detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Would this House please welcome Mr. MacSorley and Mr. Erwin Swangard?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are students from the Eric Hamber Secondary School. I would like to ask you to welcome the members of these classes from this great secondary school in the Vancouver–Little Mountain constituency, as well as their teacher, Miss Judy Summer, who is in charge.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce an important visitor from Tahsis today, Alderman Eric Brynjolfsson, who is down here to watch the assembly in action.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House join me in making welcome in the gallery today Reverend Rocke and Mr. Schumacher, who are here on business from that great constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Alice Jeffrey from Glenval, band manager and also on the northwest college council, and Mr. Ken Muldoe, economic development director of the Gitsan Carrier Outreach.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, sitting in the gallery — as she does every day and has done for the past 23 years — is Mrs. Ruth Johnson. On behalf of the House and certainly on behalf of the caucus, I'd like to welcome her and also thank her for the very delightful cakes that she made available to us.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I ask you to welcome a group of young ladies and gentlemen of grade 11, Agassiz Senior Secondary School, at Agassiz, under the leadership of Mr. Ronald Dinn, their instructor.

Oral questions.

ACCEPTANCE OF BLAIR REPORT
BY HOSPITAL INDUSTRY

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the Minister of Labour: I wonder whether the minister can advise the House as to whether or not he and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) have met with the hospital industry, particularly the Vancouver General Hospital board, in an attempt to persuade them to accept the Blair award — that is, the industrial inquiry commission recommendations commissioned by the Department of Labour.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): In specific answer to the member's question: no, I have not met with either the management of the Vancouver General Hospital nor have I met with representatives of the union. However, at 3 o'clock this afternoon I am meeting with Mr. Geroux, who is the president of the Hospital Employees Union, at his request. But I've had no request for a meeting from management. Perhaps the member might wish to address a similar question to the Minister of Health, or perhaps I can respond. I understand the Minister of Health, this afternoon at 3 o'clock, is meeting with representatives of management of VGH, so between the two of us we will meet with them both separately, and perhaps together this afternoon.

MR. KING: A supplemental question: as I understand it, the Blair report does recommend that the Minister of Health release a report that was commissioned regarding health services in the province. Since it appears that the hospital industry's refusal to accept the Blair report is partly predicated on the lack of finances from the Minister of Health's department, I wonder if the Minister of Labour is not interested in consulting with him regarding the acceptability of the Blair report to the industry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I suggest to the member that he is perhaps in error in his assessment of the reason for the rejection of the Blair report. The report was rejected by the employees at Vancouver General Hospital. The reason for that rejection is unknown to me. The Health and Labour Relations Association, which bargains for the employers, has rejected the report because it exceeded significantly the anti-inflation guidelines which have been laid down by the national government.

[ Page 1342 ]

With respect to the matter of any report concerning health services, I think also that the member is in error. The report of Mr. Blair in this regard dealt with a job-evaluation study, and he recommended that it be included as part of the collective agreement which he was recommending. That report, as I say, has been rejected by both the unions and by management.

MR. KING: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: it's true that the report I refer to was the report on the job evaluation which the current Blair report, the industrial inquiry commission report, advocates be made public. Can the Minister of Labour tell me whether or not he has the agreement of his colleague, the Minister of Health, to make that report public?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: My discussions with the Minister of Labour on this subject, Mr. Speaker....

MR. KING: Talking to yourself? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I find that when I talk to the Minister of Labour I get better answers. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At least he understands the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In my discussions with....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Labour has the floor.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for that last.

In my discussions with the Minister of Health, I am advised that the report will be made public, but it is the desire of that minister to discuss the implications of it with the hospital employers before so doing.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour a question, with regard to phase 2 of the provincial government's summer student-employment programme. In view of the minister's statement in the House in question period on April 26 that he was completely unaware that a dispute existed with the B.C. Government Employees
Union about proposed student rates of pay, could I ask the minister, in light of these facts, if it is correct that in fact an impasse has been reached and that telegrams and other forms of notification have been sent to students telling them not to report for work until further notice and until further decisions or further negotiations have been completed regarding the rate of pay?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: To the member for Oak Bay, Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any telegrams being sent to any students. If they've been sent by my department I would appreciate the member making me aware of that fact.

With regard to the matter of an impasse, I do not believe there is an impasse. The union takes the position that jobs which are part of the component should be paid at the component rates, and I don't disagree with that. The student rate is to be applied to student positions in each department.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that certain departments such as Agriculture and Mines are, in fact, employing students at union rates of pay and that this is confusing to those other students who had been told that they were to be employed, for example, by the Department of Highways, and subsequently have been told not to report for work? In other words, there seems to be a complete uncoordination of policy despite the fact that this year — I think the minister made the point — all applications were to be centralized and computerized, simply to avoid this uncoordination through different departments. Would the minister care to comment on that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry if there's any confusion. If there is, it hasn't been caused by the Department of Labour. It has always been the case with regard to the summer student-employment programme that some students were paid at student rates for student jobs. Other students who were employed by departments within component jobs which required some special skill or experience were paid at the component rate. That is the situation that still obtains this year. There may be some confusion in some of the departments. I think if they look very carefully at the correspondence from the Department of Labour, that confusion will be very quickly resolved. And if we have to send out another clarifying memo, we will certainly do so.

MR. WALLACE: A final quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could explain then government statements, including a statement by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), that if the impasse or the dispute with the unions was not

[ Page 1343 ]

settled there would be a serious number of students expecting employment out of the 4,600 the minister quoted on April 23. How many of these 4,600 are, in fact, likely to become employed during the summer by various departments of government?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take that question as notice. I have asked for a specific report as to the number of positions which have been nominated by the government departments to the referral service which is operated by the Department of Labour. I don't have that report at the moment and therefore I cannot tell you specifically how many jobs will be forthcoming from each department, but that inquiry is going on this morning.

POLICY CONCERNING AUTO INSURANCE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

Could the minister confirm in the House his reported statement of yesterday that at present there is no definite government plan to allow private insurance companies to sell automobile insurance in British Columbia?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): This is a matter of policy, Mr. Speaker. We did have a meeting yesterday, however, with the representatives of the private insurers from eastern Canada to discuss with them what the possible circumstances might be for re-entry of the private insurers into British Columbia next year.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary. I would ask the minister if he's aware that on April 22 of this year, the First National Insurance Co. of America and the Unionamerica Co. were granted licences under the Insurance Act, which include the authorization to undertake automobile insurance, and that this is the first time such authorization has been granted since June 7, 1973. Does this not indicate a change in policy?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, it doesn't.

GRADE 10 SCHOOL LEAVING

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

This morning I read in one of the Vancouver papers a statement allegedly by yourself that gave me great concern. I, as most of you would agree, would very much dislike to see anyone curtailed after the grade 10 level for continuing in their future education. It seems to me that the state should never enter into the personal development of any person, especially at such an early age as 15 or 16. I would ask of that minister an explanation of his remarks yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I would draw your attention to the rules in Beauchesne which indicate that to inquire of a cabinet minister whether statements made in a newspaper are true or not is out of order.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be happy to reply....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I am drawing the minister's attention to the quotation in Beauchesne. If he wishes to reply, that's the minister's prerogative.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and to assure all hon. members and the public of British Columbia that no one in the government or the Department of Education even remotely considered the idea of axing non-scholars or any other students, particularly at grade 10.

The objective is exactly the opposite to what the headlines in the Vancouver Province implied this morning. The department is studying, Mr. Speaker, the articulation between the secondary and post-secondary institutions in British Columbia with the view of making it easier for us to get on with its programmes. It applies to technical and vocational training. The objective is to improve the retention of the students in the system. We think this will happen, because we have a number of institutions developing in British Columbia....

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the minister ask leave of the House to make a statement, if he'd like, after the question period?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. McGEER: I asked if it was the wish. If it isn't the wish, that's fine with me.

MEDIATION OF CUPE DISPUTE

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious effects on the community of the continuing dispute between

[ Page 1344 ]

the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Mid-Island Public Employers' Association, in particular on education in the Nanaimo school district, and in view of the fact that mediator Clark Gilmour has twice given up trying to reach agreement and has recommended that an industrial inquiry commissioner be appointed, and in view of the fact that the union has accepted his recommendation but management has declined to accept it but management has said that they would accept a commissioner if the government appoints one, is the minister considering appointing an industrial inquiry commissioner?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I am not considering the appointment of one but I am proposing to discuss the matter with the union and with the employers' representatives.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplemental question by the member for Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: The minister said he is meeting with them. Could I ask when that meeting will be taking place?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I said I was proposing to discuss the appointment of an IIC with both the employers and the union. I have not set a date for the meeting yet.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): A further supplemental to the Minister of Labour. Within my constituency, both that labour situation and the situation in the Cowichan school district With the IWA have resulted in the schools being closed for some period of time. Have you been approached to take any action in that particular dispute? Are you aware of what the status of that labour situation is at this moment?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am aware of the status of the labour situation but I have received no requests to intervene.

FOOD PRICE INCREASES

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): To the Minister of Consumer Services. The Anti-Inflation Board has announced that food prices for the month of April increased by 0.5 per cent. I wonder if you would advise the House what the monitoring carried out by your department revealed for that same period of time.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I already filed a document in the House giving the latest information my department has.

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the question period, Hon. Members.

If I might just make a statement before we proceed further today, Hansard has informed me, Hon. Members, that they have considerable difficulty on occasion transcribing the words that are delivered in debate on the floor of the House. I think this comes about because of members turning away from their microphones to engage in a bit of conversation or an aside with other members adjacent to them or behind them. So I just suggest to you all that you please keep this in mind and try to maintain a distance from the microphone that will allow the transcribers in Hansard to transcribe what you have said, because they are missing a lot of the remarks. Now that may not in itself be bad sometimes. Regardless of that, it is very difficult for them. It has been brought to my attention; I now bring it to the hon. members' attention. So please be guided accordingly.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, what is your pleasure and the pleasure of the House with regard to questions that have been taken as notice? Is it the wish of the House that these be answered at the conclusion of question period or during question period?

MR. SPEAKER: I think, Hon. Minister, that you are talking now of giving an answer that would take up considerable time or take up time within the 15 minutes of our question period. I am afraid that my feeling as Speaker is that this is entirely the prerogative of the minister involved. If the minister feels that asking leave to make a statement prior to the start of the question period will then allow members to proceed further in their questioning, that is the decision the minister must make. If it is a question that you have had to research considerably and it is almost in the form of a return, you might consider filing it at the table. But in any event, it is my opinion that asking leave before the question period or following the question period is a matter of decision for the individual minister concerned.

HON. MR. McGEER: How about during the question period?

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure that the rules are quite clear: the questions to the ministers should be short, concise and to the point. We hope that answers will follow that same pattern. At times I have had to rule both the questioner and the answerer out of order because of the length in time that was taken.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 1345 ]

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'd like to ask the Attorney-General whether he believes in sunshine and open government and whether or not he believes that when a public report is prepared it should be released for the perusal of the public. I refer particularly to one by Messrs. Bain, Wyler and Black on the ombudsman. It seems to me with a bill coming, and here we're kind of late into the session, that those were public reports and should be released for discussion so they can be examined by members of the Legislature and all the public — not sat on. The Attorney-General is sitting on a public report that has been paid for by the taxpayers, and one that the taxpayers are not allowed to read. If you don't do that, then you plummet in a bill....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): That's one you left.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, do you want me to release it? I can go down to my office...I can go to my basement. (Laughter.) I can make a photocopy of it and let you all have that report; it belongs to you all.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You know, this is closet government when you sit on a report that surveyed the role of the ombudsman in many parts of the world, and made recommendations and was paid for at public expense. Yet you won't let the public read that report. So I'm just asking you: will you release it? Just nod your head.

You know, I think it's a tragedy that reports of this kind are not released well before the time the legislation is tabled.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's behind the closet; we couldn't find it.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there were two copies.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Something else you left under the rug. (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: So what do I say to stay in order, Mr. Chairman? I'm demanding the release of the report on the ombudsman. I think that if you sit on these reports you're engaging in closet government, which is the worst kind.

Question No. 2 — and the first one is easy to answer — I ask of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). You may say that this comes under his department but it doesn't; it comes under the general superintendence of the Attorney-General in seeing that justice is done to citizens. The question I brought up was whether or not recipients of assistance under the Human Resources department have the right to look at their personal files, because those files are vital to them to know whether a bum decision has been made and they've been rejected unfairly from assistance....

MR. KING: Because of long hair or dress...

MR. MACDONALD: ...or an anonymous letter, a letter that's on there — something from a doctor, something from a neighbour complaining about their conduct — and no opportunity for people, who are the recipients of decisions on the part of government, and which are very vital to them, to see the file on which the decision was made. Now the recipients of relief through the CNIB, the blind, now have the right, with somebody accompanying them, to inspect their files through the CNIB.

We did in our period of office, Mr. Chairman, under the Workers Compensation Board, assure that it was out in the open. I say that the Attorney-General ought to have an opinion on this as to whether or not public files are going to be available to the people affected by them so they'll have a right of reply, so they'll have some opportunity to see on what basis that decision is made. I'll just sit down — those are two questions, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise an issue with the Attorney-General. It concerns the city of Prince Rupert, which is in my riding, and it concerns the RCMP lock-up in that community. Just so the Attorney-General is fully aware of the matter, I would like to read into the record a letter addressed to the Attorney-General — I know that oftentimes the minister doesn't get a chance to personally peruse letters that come into this department.

City of Prince Rupert,
March 31, 1976

Hon. Garde B. Gardom,
Attorney-General,
Legislative Buildings,
Victoria, British Columbia.

Dear Mr. Gardom:

Your letter of date March 16, 1976, in which you advised

[ Page 1346 ]

that the government will not assume responsibility for the Prince Rupert lock-up was considered by city council on Monday evening last. Needless to say, the council was shocked and disappointed by the position taken by the government. You will be aware that the former Attorney General for British Columbia, A.B. Macdonald, agreed on behalf of the Government of British Columbia to assume responsibility for prisoner maintenance in Prince Rupert after April 1, 1976. As a result of that agreement the council sought the approval of the electors to construct a city detachment office for the RCMP, valued at approximately $600,000.

A loan authorization bylaw was approved in November, 1975, and the architect engaged by the city was instructed to prepare preliminary construction plans. To date the city has paid out approximately $9,000 in architectural fees for a project that is now threatened because of your government's attempt to break an agreement.

Prince Rupert city council feels that the province of British Columbia has a moral and legal obligation to the city of Prince Rupert to honour their commitment on lock-up responsibility which was made by the former Attorney — General in January, 1975.

Your early comments would be appreciated.

Yours very truly,
William Smith,
City Administrator,
City of Prince Rupert.

I spoke with Mr. Smith this morning by telephone. The matter — as the letter points out — is still there. The agreement, in my opinion, has been broken, Mr. Chairman. I have advised the city of Prince Rupert to get attorneys and see whether they cannot sue the Province of British Columbia for this breach of agreement, and they are so doing right now. They are going to solicitors. If this agreement was between anybody else — two corporate bodies or a private person and a corporation — I'm sure that they would have grounds to sue and would win their case. I have advised the city of Prince Rupert to do just that.

It seems to me a very high-handed way of dealing with the problem, when there was an agreement by the government of British Columbia, through the former Attorney-General. The city of Prince Rupert has gone out and spent money for architectural fees, has gone to the people of that community in a bylaw referendum to get approval from the people, which was passed, and now the government of the day is going to go back and renege on that agreement that was made by the former government.

Whether the present government agrees or not with the former government, the agreement was made with the city of Prince Rupert, and I don't think our philosophical, ideological or political differences should make any difference to the city of Prince Rupert. The agreement made was between the city of Prince Rupert and the Province of British Columbia, and I believe that this agreement should be kept.

I remember, many times, sitting on that side of the House and listening to the Attorney-General of today, when he was a member of the Liberal Party, talking about the sanctity of contract and criticizing us strongly, when we were government. I suggest that this is a pure case of breaking the sanctity of a contract, and I would like to have the Attorney-General's comments on this matter.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I presume the minister is collecting the questions and will give one series of answers. I simply must repeat the question that I asked yesterday afternoon regarding the Victoria juvenile detention centre, which, as I stated yesterday, is used to a very varying degree, but regardless of whether they have seven young people or 23, there is no routine medical service available to check on the physical and mental condition of the young persons brought to that detention centre. I would just quickly repeat that there have been children with infections; there have been young girls admitted who, unknown to the administration, are pregnant. There are risks of other diseases being spread, and the tendency has been to wait for a crisis, in which case the young person is then taken to the emergency department of a local hospital.

Is the reason for this lack of funding, or is it lack of administration — or what is it a lack of? The fact is that the facility is owned or at least financed by the provincial government, but managed by the four municipalities of Victoria, Saanich, Esquimalt and Oak Bay. The medical supervision of the young offender in that institution is certainly inadequate, to say the least, and I'd like to know if the minister has had an opportunity since yesterday to check into it, or if he will investigate the matter.

Another question, which I won't go into detail on again, but to which I want an answer concerns any plans the minister has to deal with the case of the person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity and is admitted to Riverside hospital, and detained there on what amounts, very often, to an indefinite sentence. Once the person has been admitted to that facility because of reasons of insanity, it is extremely difficult.... I won't repeat all the reasons I stated yesterday, to save the time of the House, but it is a very important question of an individual's rights and freedoms. The long-term result is very often that the person who finds himself in there because of insanity, which is not — contrary to the idea of many people — a permanent condition.... A person may well be psychotic under the influence of drugs or some other chemical agent who commits an offence and who, within a matter of days or weeks, is no longer insane, or insane under the kind of loose definitions that have been used down through the centuries as to

[ Page 1347 ]

what constitutes insanity.

Mr. Chairman, there are apparently offenders in that facility where in the past medical recommendations have been made that they be released. But the present procedure is that the cabinet decides whether such recommendations should be followed, and, perhaps worse than that, these recommendations are not necessarily made public. I would like to know from the minister if he is happy with the present arrangement — and I'm sure he couldn't be. If he isn't happy with the arrangements, what policy changes does the minister have in mind?

I would also like to comment briefly on a statement by the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) regarding the ombudsman report. I feel that since we are committed to an ombudsman there should be the maximum possible public dialogue before the actual legislation is implemented. I would like to ask the minister whether he has considered tabling the proposed legislation, but not proceeding with the legislation. This is a technique, he well knows from his many years in the House, which displays the basic trust and content of government legislation but allows all the public, persons and parties, interested in the bill to continue public dialogue.

I do hope that the minister would make some comment, even if he disagrees with my proposal, because there's a great deal of public interest in not only the need for an ombudsman, but the fact that such a person or such a role in society has been promised by this government.

I understand there are only two provinces in the whole of Canada who now do not have an ombudsman — being Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. It would seem to me that regardless of the best of intentions of all of us in this House, all arms of government are proliferating at a somewhat alarming rate and the individual's access to people who determine a lot of his destiny is getting more and more difficult. The point I think is so important is that now having finally reached that big moment when the government of British Columbia is committed to creating an ombudsman, surely all these other jurisdictions and different countries have had a great deal of experience and we should draw upon all that kind of information to get the best possible legislation in British Columbia.

Another final point I wanted to make or ask about is that I believe the B.C. Police College has recently formed the equivalent of a special weapons and assault team which is meant to deal with abrupt or serious riots and such-like where there is danger to the public. The comment was made that this special weapons and assault team would conveniently be ready to go into action at the time of Habitat.

Mr. Chairman, there's been a great deal of discussion about Habitat, quite naturally, and a great deal of newspaper reporting of the fact that Vancouver and British Columbia, and perhaps Canada, have been very remiss in taking Habitat seriously and that one or two individuals have carried an immense load in even getting the preparations for Habitat to the point they have now reached. There have also been comments, based on experience of such previous events as the Olympics, that some of the international terrorist organizations might well choose to use the function of Habitat to create international incidents which would be, in their view at least, to their advantage.

I'd like to know two or three specific things about the government's commitment to Habitat. First of all, what extra police protection has been requested from whatever source — whether it's from the municipalities or from the federal government, or from people living in the province of British Columbia, or interested groups or countries, for that matter, that will be taking part in Habitat and sending high-ranking delegations to Habitat? What request has been made of the provincial government to participate in any way in providing police protection?

Secondly, to what degree will delegations to Habitat be bringing their own police protection? And, if so, what preparation has the Attorney-General's department made to deal with the kind of incident that flourished on the front page of the newspaper the other day when one of the foreign potentates was pictured with a gun tucked in his belt under his jacket, and this only became visible when he waved to the crowd? I will try to be tactful and not even mention names, Mr. Chairman, to embarrass anyone, but this was a person of the highest rank — a king, in fact — who visited Montreal, and in the course of his acknowledgement of the crowd waved his arm and as his jacket opened there was a revolver tucked in his belt.

I think that Habitat inevitably, because of the very nature of the event, will be drawing high-ranking political leaders from many, many countries. I wonder if the provincial government, or the Attorney-General's department on behalf of the government, has made any particular plans to arrange ahead of time the laws which will be applied — or overlooked, perhaps — in the light of some of these delegations bringing their own police protection, in which cases these individuals will be accustomed to a very different type of regulation, or perhaps no type of regulation, over the use of guns and weapons in public.

In other words, many of them will be bringing with them types of weapons and a background in the use of these weapons quite different from the regulations which apply in the province of British Columbia.

The third question I'd like to pose is the cost of police protection during Habitat and whether or not

[ Page 1348 ]

the Attorney-General's department has finalized any cost-sharing formula with the federal government. It's quite obvious from a great deal of information published in the news media that there will be considerable extra costs involved in trying to provide police protection. I would assume this is mainly a federal-provincial responsibility to try and meet these costs. I just wonder if the minister can give the House any information as to what the cost will be, and what cost-sharing formula will be applied, and whether or not the municipalities, to any degree, have been asked — or at least the municipalities in the lower mainland — whether they have been asked to contribute anything towards the cost of police protection for Habitat.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to respond to the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), first of all, dealing with Habitat. I think we're recognizing, Mr. Member, that British Columbia is a law-abiding community with law-abiding citizens, and we're looking forward to a peaceful conference, and we're certainly expecting that everyone will bear that caveat in mind.

The member asked me what type of police protection has been requested, and the response is: that which is adequate and necessary. He talked about the delegates bringing their own security forces — none that we are aware of, Mr. Member. The VIP security is a matter of RCMP jurisdiction, and apparently this is the policy of the Government of Canada.

Dealing with what laws shall apply — the laws of Canada and the laws of British Columbia shall apply, and the costs of the police facilities and security are those which will be borne by the city of Vancouver.

You asked me a question last night, Mr. Member — and I was going to respond but we ran out of time here yesterday — concerning the juvenile detention home in Victoria. I thank you for drawing that to my attention. It's the first that I'd heard of it. Out of this year's budget we propose to locate some form of medical help and assistance there, a nurse or something along that line.

You raised again the question of the very difficult task that has been faced by cabinets in this province essentially since the time of Confederation, and that is dealing with order-in-council patients. Long-term changes are being viewed by the federal government. Any long-term change, of course, would have to result from the federal initiative because it's a provision under the Criminal Code of Canada. However, there was a report in front of the national law commission — I believe in October of last year — with a view to various recommendations to code changes. It's a matter that is under consideration by the new government and a lot of thought is being given to it.

The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is not at his desk but, first of all, I would like to file, if I may.... Well, he'll be back.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I can see through him still, by gosh! That's right.

I'd like to file, Mr. Chairman, if I may, the report of the Law Reform Commission of B.C. on minors' contracts, and this is one that is dated a little bit earlier but it came to my desk actually this afternoon for filing.

Now the member mentioned the report by Messrs. Black and Weiler on the ombudsman. You know, I thought he would have attended to filing that. I'm rather surprised to find out it hasn't been filed, and I am delighted to see that it will be.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the lock-up agreement — I don't yet have the file, Mr. Member, but I can mention this to you. This is a question of government policy. Whether there was or was not a commitment is open to interpretation. It is not the policy of this government to provide lock-up services such as was suggested for Prince Rupert and only for Prince Rupert. If it is going to be government policy to provide that type of service, it would be for all of the municipalities in this province. That would cost millions and millions of dollars and it is not possible for us to become involved in that at this present time.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has just informed the committee that it is not the policy of the new government to follow supplying staff and personnel for lock-up facilities. If that's the policy of this government, so be it. But at the same time I don't see why the city of Prince Rupert should have to pay out money based on a policy of the past government. An agreement was made.

I would like to tell you some of the background, Mr. Chairman. The former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), the member for Vancouver East, travelled to Prince Rupert with me and went through the facilities that the RCMP have to work from and in the city of Prince Rupert. He found those facilities just as deplorable as I do.

Also there were the staff and the mayor and the council of Prince Rupert. They considered that Prince Rupert should be a special case because no one should have to work in the kind of facilities that the police have to work in in the city of Prince Rupert. It's deplorable. As I said, the former Attorney-General did take the time to come with me to Prince Rupert and go through those facilities with me. He stated in his letter to the city of Prince Rupert, to Mayor Lester, that the city did make a special case.

[ Page 1349 ]

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General says that policy has changed. I say so be it. But the city of Prince Rupert should not have to suffer for that policy change, and I would ask the Attorney-General to say that the city of Prince Rupert is going to be reimbursed for any expense that they have been put to by the policy change. I think that's only fair. It wouldn't be that much, I wouldn't imagine. All I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is to have the Attorney-General stand in his place and say that he will get in touch with the city of Prince Rupert and that any expense that the city has gone to because of an agreement with the former government should be reimbursed to that city by the present government.

Now, that's only fair. The agreement was made, and if the Attorney-General will stand up in this House and say that all the expenses that the city was put to by this change in policy by the new government will be reimbursed, then I think maybe that's the best the city can hope for from the government. It's not the best they should get. They should get the agreement that was made with them by the former Attorney-General. That would be the fairest. But the next fairest thing would be at least to reimburse the city of Prince Rupert for the expense that they have gone to. I would like to hear the Attorney-General's answer to that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make one observation, and that is this: whether there was or was not an agreement, as I said before, is certainly open to interpretation. Conceivably any statement by the Attorney-General for the provision of this service would be subject to Treasury Board, so he would have faced the same restriction.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's quite good enough. As I mentioned at the outset when I took my place this afternoon, I believe the city of Prince Rupert...well, I know they are going ahead getting legal advice on how to sue the provincial government. I think that it would be in place for this new government to treat Prince Rupert fairly, as they deserve, and not even put them to the expense of having to go to attorneys to try and see what rights they have on this broken contract. I suppose what the Attorney-General is telling me is to tell them to go to the courts and decide. They are going to, and I think they should. You'll find that the city of Prince Rupert is not going to take this lying down. They are going to go to their attorneys. They have already and they will go to court.

MR. MACDONALD: The situation in Prince Rupert which has been brought up so eloquently and correctly by the member for Prince Rupert was that you had one of the worst lock-up situations in the province, especially for young people. You also had a terrible RCMP detachment. It was all in that one old building, and people were falling all over each other. The city of Prince Rupert then made very generous provision to go ahead with a new RCMP headquarters which is very vital in that city. They drew up good plans which met out approval, and to say that the Treasury Board didn't approve.... No, I got that cleared before I wrote the letter.

The thing that really disturbs me, Mr. Chairman, is that the Attorney-General seems to be suggesting a change of policy. Apart from the interests of Prince Rupert, we believed that the lock-up should be administered by people independent of the police officers. We said that not only because of the justice situation, but that it's better that the police officer who makes an arrest turns over the accused to an independent party such as the sheriff service, or custodians who are specially trained for lock-up duty. The other side of the coin is that you thereby release police officers into the community for police work instead of having them look after a lock-up, which is not up to the limits of their training at all.

I would hope that the Attorney-General will not turn his back upon the taking over of the lock-ups for management through the sheriff service or through custodians or people who are specially trained to look after those who are arrested. That's the long-term policy issue. In the case of Prince Rupert, we thought that that was the place to start the pilot project of the takeover of the lock-ups because that was the place where the need was greatest.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, just one final point. The Attorney-General said there seems to be some doubt as to whether, in fact, an agreement has been made between the city of Prince Rupert and the Province of British Columbia. Just to put the record straight, here's a letter dated January 30, 1975, to His Worship, Mayor P.J. Lester, City of Prince Rupert, and signed by Alex Macdonald, Attorney-General. It says:

Dear Mayor Lester:

In your absence I met with the acting mayor and some of your councillors. Naturally I am concerned that the city proceed at least with plans for appropriate quarters for the RCMP detachment. I was given to understand that the key problem for the city was the provision of the personnel to run the lock-up in the event the police detachment was in a new location. It seems to me that you have made a special case, and I can advise you that we will somehow find personnel, either through the sheriff service or otherwise, to provide this lock-up service in the event the RCMP moves, p r e s u m a b I y in 1976, into the newly-constructed quarters.

I think this answers the request to me to

[ Page 1350 ]

which I undertook to reply within two weeks.

Yours very truly,
Alex Macdonald,
Attorney-General.

Now it doesn't leave any doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the agreement was there. "Go ahead, " the former Attorney-General said in his letter. "Go ahead, because somehow the Province of British Columbia will make sure that the personnel are there, either through the sheriff service or otherwise." The city of Prince Rupert, it would seem to me, would have been negligent in their duties if they hadn't acted on the strength of this letter. It is an agreement signed by the Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia telling the city of Prince Rupert to go ahead. Now to say that maybe there is an agreement or maybe there isn't an agreement is pure nonsense. The agreement was there.

I just can't understand the attitude of the new government, Mr. Chairman. They seem to be so concerned about whether agreements are kept or not kept, but when it comes to them, they'll break them when they see fit. Let's see how they act, Mr. Chairman, when it doesn't fit into their plans. Then I'll bet that they go by the letter of the law on whether an agreement is an agreement.

Actually, I feel sorry for the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman. I thought he had more weight in cabinet than he has.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to a question to which, with respect, I didn't appreciate the answer from the Attorney-General. I'm talking about the offender in Riverside. I'm quite well aware of the fact that I am not well versed in the niceties of the law, but I am quoting the Law Reform Commission. I would like to quote their statement from the working paper called "The Criminal Process and Mental Disorder." That working paper states that "the disposition of the unfit accused has been delegated from federal powers to provincial Lieutenant-Governors — in effect, the cabinets of the various provinces."

Mr. Chairman, with respect, all this gobbledegook about any change in federal legislation is not accurate; either that or the Law Reform Commission doesn't know what it is talking about. The fact is that it is my understanding, from all the reading I have done on this issue, that a person originally admitted to Riverside because of an offence committed while insane to use a word which, as I say, is loosely defined has, in effect, an indeterminate sentence. The only way that person can ever be released from Riverside is first of all to have a review from which recommendations go to cabinet. I am just asking one simple question: do they go to cabinet and does the cabinet make the decision? If it is the case, does the minister not feel that it is such an unfair thing to ask the cabinet, really, to make that kind of decision? Should not there be some other mechanism whereby perhaps the judge plus medical personnel are given some autonomy to make the decision? Then if the offender repeats the offence after release, at least the government — the cabinet — neither in a positive nor a negative way could be criticized for having let politics influence what was a medical decision.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, through you, that there have been lots of comments in the media that it is such a sensitive decision these days when society is very concerned, and rightly so, about events which happen, for example, when a person is released on parole and commits an offence while on parole. Great emphasis is given to the minority of such cases, and overlooked are the big benefits that are following, in my view and in the view of many people, from the majority of parolees who do not get into trouble and who do not repeat offences. The same kind of thinking must be in the minds of cabinet ministers when they face recommendations regarding a person in Riverside who may have committed murder or rape or some other very serious offence. The cabinet ministers are left facing the decision as to whether they release this person back into society or not on the basis of somebody's recommendations, however well motivated these recommendations might be.

All I am saying is that it doesn't seem the best way to do it by passing the buck to the cabinet. I wonder if the minister could tell us what alternative he might consider.

When I was on my feet a moment ago I forgot to get onto an important local issue, and that is the question of the courts in Victoria, Mr. Chairman. A very eminent judge retired not too long ago....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Would you like me to respond?

MR. WALLACE: Certainly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The procedure at the present time, as I think the hon. member is aware, is that the matter first is heard by the order-in-council patients review board. After that it is processed through cabinet. That is the only procedure that is presently available, and we will require to alter that in an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. This is a matter that is being looked at right across the country. It's not unique to B.C. It's a very difficult and awkward procedure, as you have clearly illustrated. Personally, I think there's a lot of value to your remarks, and also to the considerations of the Law Reform Commission, but that's as far as I can go with you today.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I certainly apologize if I

[ Page 1351 ]

suggested that the minister gave an inaccurate answer. Can I just be absolutely clear that the situation is that even if the government wished an alternative mechanism, it is not within the jurisdiction of the cabinet to change the mechanism without a change in the Criminal Code of Canada?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Right.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I appreciate your explaining to someone like myself who's not well-versed in the technicalities of legislation at different levels.

With regard to the law courts in Victoria, could I ask two or three quick questions? Mr. Justice Wootton, a supreme court judge, recently retired and I understand he has not been replaced. I wonder if there is to be a replacement.

The court of appeal was moved from Victoria. I also understand that Victoria has the dubious status of being the only provincial capital in Canada that does not have a court of appeal in the capital. The court of appeal, I believe, was moved when renovations were embarked upon to build two extra floors on the courtroom building in Victoria. I would like to know if the minister will give either a commitment or confirm the fact that the court of appeal will return to Victoria when building renovations and additions have been completed.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The present county court is being held temporarily in St. Ann's Academy. With no disrespect whatever to that building or to the former order of nuns, I just want to make it very plain that the legal profession in Victoria are very unhappy about the albeit temporary facilities. On top of that, I think they've just recently discovered that, unknown to them, much of the space on the additional two floors will not be made available as courtroom space but as government offices.

I would like to get answers to these various questions. First of all, will we be having someone appointed as a supreme court judge to replace Mr. Justice Wootton? Will the court of appeal return to Victoria? Will the new construction involve any new space for the court or will it all be used as government offices — the two additional floors? Finally, is there a projected date by which it is confidently expected that the construction will be completed?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Labour disputes, acts of God and pestilence notwithstanding, the fall is the target date for the completion and, hopefully, the court of appeal will be back in and operating by then. We are also proposing that the three courtrooms be installed on the main floor. We're going to try to do that with the least disruption possible over the next short while. Concerning the retirement of Mr. Justice Wootton, I wish him the greatest of good fortune and success in his retirement. I'd like to thank him on behalf of the people of this province for his great contribution. Insofar as his replacement is concerned, that is a matter for the consideration of the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Basford) .

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I understand that the Attorney-General's department has made a decision to move the inmates from the Vancouver juvenile home to the Willingdon campus. My questions are related to that decision, so perhaps I should first ask if that decision has been made, before I carry on with my questions. Has it been made?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Willingdon is to be a remand and assessment programme. That's what the concept is.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, that's fine. That's really what I want to get on to. I realize it's to be a remand centre and some of the young people from the juvenile home, I gather, will be moved there also. Okay.

I know the Attorney-General is well aware that the Willingdon campus is, of course, now used by BCIT. You have made the decision, obviously. My hope is that there's been a considerable amount of consultation with BCIT. I do want to ask you, hopefully in discussions that have taken place, what decisions have been made regarding this move, because there's grave concern about some of the problems inherent in the move from the point of view of BCIT and, may I say, perhaps from the community, not because the young people are going in there but because of community accessibility to the usage of the facilities.

So, specifically, my questions are: as we know, there was a nursing course.... Rather, the facility was being used at Willingdon for a nursing course. What will now happen to that? What about the students who were being accommodated there and who were able to live there during our serious housing crisis for students? Where will they go now? What will happen to the food services which were being provided, not only for the students on campus but for the other students at BCIT? I do feel that it's important for all of us to know, now that you've made your decision, what is going to happen in those areas.

Secondly, I'm sure the Attorney-General has visited Willingdon and is aware that it has a very, very large swimming pool which we were very pleased, as government, to open to the community so people of all ages could use this very, very excellent pool. What

[ Page 1352 ]

are your plans there? Will this now be all closed off to the public?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think the best way to respond to your question, Madam Member, is to read to you a letter I sent to the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), because I don't wish to miss any of the points and, as you know, this is a pretty encompassing department. I'm doing my best here.

First, insofar as consultation is concerned, this was the decision that was entered into, not individually but with the concurrence and encouragement of both the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). It's something that we figured was long overdue in this province, and I must say I'm very pleased with the response the new government has received concerning this measure.

I have reported to the member for Oak Bay that I wish to clarify the proposal of the Willingdon facility, and drew to his attention that I was fully aware that the previous use of the facility as a training school for girls involves many of the negative aspects which he outlined in his letter. This department doesn't have any intention of reintroducing this kind of situation in the proposed juvenile programme. The facility will be used as a resource for both boys and girls requiring detainment at the time of arrest, or requiring secure remand based on an order of the court. A screening and assessment mechanism is being built into the programme to assure that juveniles are only received into the facility when no other adequate resources are available and that their period in the facility be for as short a time as possible.

The facility is being renovated and developed into several stages of security accommodation with a supporting programme based on staff involvement with remanded juveniles. This is an attempt to reduce as much as possible the use of cells and other security procedures as a method of control. But, of course, it has to be realized that the juveniles who are received into the detention facility are for the most part those whose behaviour does not allow for placement in a more open community-based programme.

Now current planning also includes the possibility of locating the Burnaby family court in the facility. This would provide, in the view of the department, a much closer association between the resources of the family court and the remand centre. This is a positive development and it should create a total atmosphere of responsiveness to juveniles in conflict with the law, which I think would well help to avoid some of the negative institutional problems that were referred to me by the member for Oak Bay.

Now vis-à-vis the Department of Education, the Department of the Attorney-General has been able to work out a satisfactory arrangement with it, as I've indicated. The pool and the recreational facilities will be available for general use and the cottages in the complex will be retained for the exclusive use of the Department of Education.

The classroom in the main building has not been used by the Department of Education, I gather, for some time, and consequently there is no major disruption of educational programmes operating in that complex. As I say, Madam Member, this is a matter that consideration was given to by the three ministries, and that's the decision that's been taken.

MRS. DAILLY: On a supplementary: I appreciate the detailed answer from the Attorney-General. My concern, however, is that some of the inmates, no doubt — as you've mentioned, I think, yourself, or it was suggested or implied — will need some fairly high-security containment. I really cannot see how you are going to be able to mix high-security containment with general use of the building by the community and by the students. This is something, frankly, that really concerns me. How can it possibly be done?

May I say that why I am expressing this concern is that when some of the young people from the old Vancouver juvenile home were sent to Haney, when they had problems with the boiler blowing up and so on, we know what the result was. We had that turned into a vocational school and then these young people were placed there. I know this was done under the former government and at that time there was an emergency situation, but it was on the interim. My concern is that I do not see how you can mix an open educational community service with a high-security containment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again, I'm stressing the fact, Madam Member, that this is to be a remand centre. There are going to be very large staff increases, and the containment programmes are not only going to be bars and cells or perimeter programmes. There are going to be a lot of people involved; there's going to be a combination of both.

But I would like to mention that this government is going to come to grips with something that I must really criticize the former administration for not attending to. We propose to provide a facility for hard-core juveniles, and are going to try to look at it in as modern a light as possible.

We do appreciate the fact that there are a relatively small number of hard-core juveniles who just have to be taken out of the mainstream for a bit because they are of serious concern to the communities in which they've been placed. I've heard many complaints from judges, people who are involved in work with juveniles, social workers — you name it. They say: "My gosh, eventually we've been getting to the point of complete frustration. There is nowhere to put these kids." Now we're planning to

[ Page 1353 ]

find an adequate place for that. But that has nothing to do with this programme at all.

MRS. DAILLY: I didn't want to start opening up a philosophical debate on the containment area of young juveniles that I'm sure may come up later. I still don't have an answer from the Attorney-General.

My main concern is that he had admitted that there will have to be high-security containment; there will be bars. The cells will have to be used, I suppose, which I rather regret — I've seen them. I find this a great concern. If anyone has gone into that place and seen those cells.... But if you're going to use them — and that is your decision; we're not here to debate that decision — I'm simply saying how can you possibly have that high-security containment and at the same time have it open for community and education? I cannot see how. I'm just asking you — how can it be done?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm assured by the professionals involved that it can be done, and I'm relying upon their advice.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to prolong this debate — it's gone on for quite some time now — but I rise to speak on vote 10 of the Attorney-General's estimates in order to acquaint the members of this House and, as well, the hon. minister with some of the problems which face my constituency, and in fact much of the north, in regard to the justice system in our province.

First, I would comment on remarks made yesterday by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) regarding the totally inadequate juvenile centres of the lower mainland, especially here in Victoria. Mr. Chairman, I was appalled at what the hon. member described, but we have no such centres in the north — good or bad — no facilities for the detention of juveniles, no such centres at all in the northern part of this province. In my estimation we must give serious consideration to the installation of such centres if justice is to be served in this province.

My second point is that of probation — not only for juveniles but for adults as well. I think probation is a tool used far too much by our judicial system today, not only in British Columbia but in all of Canada. We have individuals in my constituency who have appeared and been convicted and been placed on probation two, three and even four times — in many cases, consecutive terms. This does not protect the innocent citizens of our province.

We have only to cite the incident which occurred in Vanderhoof a very short 10 days ago when an individual who had been convicted of a shooting spree in Prince George less than a year previous, and was placed on probation, broke into a home where there was no one at home, grabbed a rifle and began shooting at random through the window into the street. Before it was over one of the bullets had passed through a window across the street, striking an invalided pensioner between the eyes and killing her — in her very own living room. Tragic. And all this while this individual was on probation. There have been many such instances when probation has not protected the innocent.

I do not wish to be lengthy this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, but before I sit down there are a couple of other points on which I would like to touch in the area of justice in our province.

First — and this was done under the former administration, and under the previous Attorney-General — the removal of lay judges in our province.

MR. MACDONALD: There are still JPs.

MR. KEMPF: Removal of these judges from our judicial system, in my mind, was one of the most unjust acts ever performed in this province. In the small communities in the north there was nothing that was more just than the decisions made by these lay judges...

MR. MACDONALD: Do I get equal time?

MR. KEMPF: ...excepting possibly the decisions made by local JPs, who, prior to another wise decision by that previous administration and that previous Attorney-General, could sit on summary conviction cases in this province.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more just than decisions made and sentences brought down by a lay judge or a justice of the peace — individuals who know their communities, know the people, and know the circumstances.

MR. MACDONALD: They know everything but the law.

MR. KEMPF: Removal of these individuals from the judicial system was a backward step, Mr. Chairman.

No. 2. Again I relate to an Act of the previous administration under the previous Attorney-General. The Forensic Psychiatric Services Act is a very dangerous and very archaic document — a document which we would have expected would emanate from the Nazi Germany era during the Hitler regime....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: It is certainly not an Act that should exist in the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Archie Bunker.

[ Page 1354 ]

MR. KEMPF: I won't go into the Act itself, but I ask that you read it yourselves, hon. members, and that you consider its abolition, Hon. Attorney-General.

To sum up, Mr. Chairman, I believe what I have tried very briefly to say here this afternoon is that there is a definite need in our province today to return to a judicial system that will once more protect the innocent and not the guilty.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I thought the former Attorney-General was going to respond but if the....

MR. MACDONALD: I'll get my estimates through.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not going to comment on the member's statement, because he sort of mixed some good points with some rather ludicrous ones, and I think he demeaned some of the strong points that he did make.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke last Thursday about the discussion paper on impaired driving for the Nelson Justice Council. It's not to my knowledge yet been fully endorsed by the council.

In response to some of the points which I tried to point out — and I'll summarize, Mr. Attorney-General — evidence was that in this particular area one of the problems we make in policy is that we try to create a policy which services Vancouver and doesn't serve other areas of the province such as the north or the Kootenays.

In our area, Mr. Attorney-General, the report, which was done with input from the RCMP....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did you send me a copy of that?

MR. NICOLSON: I haven't sent you that copy yet. In fact, copies are very hard to get — the newspaper in Nelson has had difficulty getting a copy.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Have you got one?

MR. NICOLSON: I have one, yes, and I'll give it to you.

One of the points I would like to make is that you said you would go along with irregular roadblocks. I think one of the points that they're stressing is that since week-end drinking seems to be the problem, the roadblocks should be on a weekend and that we should not....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not every one.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, maybe not every one. It wouldn't hurt to try some other time, but I think that it should be a deterrent, and it can only be a deterrent if people really feel they've got a very high chance of being caught. Being able to drive over 17,000 miles without being caught, which is the expectation from figures from the RCMP, is not a deterrent, and people aren't taking it as seriously as it was taken in England.

I would like you to consider, having read the report, the possibility of intensive weekend roadblocks. This is the time when people do the drinking. They don't drink and drive when they're staying up in the Meadow Creek logging camp. You can only go from the Meadow Creek logging camp up to the bowling alley. You would walk that distance and back, and even if you were driving while impaired on that road, with the amount of traffic it would be rather unlikely that you would cause a serious accident.

During the week people from the Meadow Creek logging camp are not engaged in heavy drinking. When they come into Nelson on the weekend, that's when it happens. We have a limited resource, a limited amount of time that can be spent. Their suggestion is that it be through intensive weekend roadblocks, as one in every 10 drivers is impaired between the hours of 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. Sunday morning. I forget the statistics that I quoted from the report the other day, but it seems to me that something like 72 per cent of traffic fatalities occur on that weekend period, particularly on Saturday night and Sunday morning.

I would like the Attorney-General to consider that perhaps infrequent or irregular roadblocks in Vancouver would catch people who are very impaired and bombed out after having been at a cocktail party on Wednesday evening, but in the Nelson area you are going to have a better success on a Saturday night. The objective is not really to catch people but to stop people from drinking and driving impaired. It's a deterrent, I would hope.

Mr. Attorney-General, you don't want to plug up your courts any more. If by this action you happen to catch an awful lot of people and you continue to catch them, we'll have to look for something better because we want to stop people from doing this. Your courts are plugged up right now and you can't handle them. If we catch all these people, then what do we do with them? It is hoped that there could be an experience perhaps similar to that in England, where introduction of breathalysers did serve as a deterrent, and yet in Canada the experience is that it didn't. I will send over the report and I would like him to consider that.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I just have one very brief question, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Attorney-General can tell us something about the plans that he has to deal with the crisis of teenage drinking — the fact that it has reached crisis

[ Page 1355 ]

proportions. I know that everyone else has spoken about alcoholism as it affects the adults in our community. I want to know if there are any programmes or any resources being developed. If funds are being set aside, what is being done to combat this insidious thing which is happening to our young people?

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Attorney-General, I just want to remind you that I don't think you answered the question yesterday — although I must apologize for being out of the House at one point when you were on your feet — with respect to employing two or three additional people to work on the Land Registry Act so that we can get more statistics with respect to the sale of land in B.C. to absentee foreigners.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It would be difficult, I gather, to collate the material in the filing system that is being used, but it is worth looking into.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly to the Attorney-General with regard to the process of conveyancing property in this province as it exists at this point in time. For many years we have been under a tariff system and virtually forced to use the services of a solicitor. In my mind, he is a very highly trained man who is trained in many aspects and phases of the law. I would ask if the Attorney-General would consider a system similar to that found in Quebec, where a notary public does most of the simple conveyancing of property, especially with regard to housing. The rates are much lower and people are satisfied. I think we are all concerned that housing costs are skyrocketing. I think conveyancing fees are just part of it, and I would like to know if the Attorney-General would consider increasing the number of notaries public in the province — I think there are 500 — to a number significantly larger, and also upgrading their skills so that they could be considered paralegal people and would be able to help in the conveyancing of land.

HON. MR. GARDOM: At the present time, Mr. Member, the notaries in the province, of course, do convey land but I gather that the rates are just about comparable between one and the other. I'll take note of your remarks and give consideration to it.

I would like to thank the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) for sending over the report on impaired driving which he referred to today and on earlier days. I can assure him that we are not going to have city vision in the matter.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I repeat my question to the Attorney-General about teenage drinking.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam Member, I am afraid this is one item where, save and except if enforcement of the law is concerned, the programmes will be under the Department of Health. You can question the minister during his estimates.

Vote 10 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You must be fooling — I demand a recount!

On vote 11: administrative and support administration of justice, $2,596,384.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I raised under the minister's vote 10 the question of the affirmative action report in his department. I notice that vote 11 also covers personnel administration and the overall policy of the department. The question I raised was: what has happened to this report and the five recommendations outlined in the report for the department?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam Member, the report came to my desk, as you know, within the last couple of months. It's not going to be a report that's going to die on the vine. It is a matter that is being considered within the department. Hopefully, we're going to be able to use some of the resources of our department to implement some of the suggestions. That's as far as I can go today.

Vote 11 approved.

On vote 12: courts, $20,264,381.

MR. MACDONALD: I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the Shrum report on 51, 61 and 71, or whether the design for that complex by Arthur Erickson is going to be dismantled or whether it will go ahead, as Arthur Erickson left the planning before Gordon Shrum came into the act. I would like to say that I regard this, in terms of the court house portion, as primarily a justice question, not.... Use of courtrooms, space, administration — all of these things, of course, require heavy input from the Attorney-General's department. As you satisfied that Shrum won't upset the apple cart?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have not read the report.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the Attorney-General received the report?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have received a report.

MR. MACDONALD: Will you table the report, Mr.

[ Page 1356 ]

Attorney-General, for the public?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not in my province to do that, Mr. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I notice the decrease in the number of deputy sheriffs. I understand that the present course which is underway was intended to enrol something like 70-odd students, and it has an enrolment of around 30 or 32, and that for the next enrolment at present there is something like 16 and there is consideration of cancelling it. This and the decrease in the number of deputy sheriffs make me wonder about the future of the programme, which I see as a good one.

I might even say, concerning the point that was brought up about lock-up facilities, that in the city of Nelson we have a fine city police detachment but they just had a problem of a breakout in the Nelson city jail, which was rather interesting. Perhaps this whole area could be and should be more expanded so that custody could be looked after more and more by sheriffs, and police work and investigative work could be handled otherwise.

So I would like to know what is happening in terms of the training programmes, which I understand go on at BCIT or near BCIT — maybe the vocational school, but somewhere around Willingdon and the old Grandview Highway — and what the significance of this reduction of 100 in deputy sheriffs is.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, the figure that is shown for last year is not a true figure because by virtue of the freeze, that was greatly reduced. I don't have at my fingertips the actual figure but it was 300 and something — I am informed 350 or so. So what is contemplated actually is an increase — a more realistic figure. Insofar as the training is concerned, it is an ongoing programme until the maximum number is reached.

MR. NICOLSON: I can well appreciate when a new programme is introduced.... For instance, in the Department of Housing I don't think the full complement of the Department of Housing has been attained yet as was in the estimates last year. But could the Attorney-General give me some idea of how many deputy sheriffs there are now and how many you would envisage increasing through training and hiring in the next year?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll have to take that question as notice and give you an answer. I will request one from the department. I don't have that information.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, my question relates to staffing, too, in this particular vote. I notice that the overall staffing has been reduced by something like 72 bodies. If you add on to that the 15 per cent general allowance for staff reduction, we are talking about some 100 people less being provided for in this estimate. In the Attorney-General's report, which he filed recently — I realize it is for 1975 — on page 11 there is reference to the very detrimental effect that short-staffing is having. It says: "Those engaged in growing, expanding programmes in the administration of justice such as Crown counsel, court reporters, sheriff service, court administration were particularly disrupted because of this very thing — the shortage of staff." I would ask the Attorney-General if he could explain the rationale for reducing staff in this particular budget when it is very overworked.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I agree with the point that the member has taken. That's not the intention at all. Perhaps it is not clear from the material; if it's not, it should have been made clearer. The 15 per cent reduction does not apply to the court services.

Vote 12 approved.

On vote 13: Crown counsel, $5,542,695.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the Attorney-General, in view of the fact that we're striving for one provincial court system, one set of prosecutors, whether there are municipal bylaw infractions or other matters that are now going to be left to the municipalities rather than the provincial prosecutors. If so, what are those matters?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry.

MR. MACDONALD: Are there any prosecutions, say municipal bylaws, that will now not be conducted by the provincial Crown counsels?

HON. MR. GARDOM: There is a possibility that the major city in the province — the city of Vancouver — may hire its own lawyers this summer.

MR. MACDONALD: I think it's kind of unfortunate because I think one provincial system is the objective. If we begin dumping on municipalities all the obligation of prosecuting this and that, that will tie them up. We'll have the fragmented system all over again and we'll be dumping a financial burden on the municipalities.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I understand, Mr. Member, that some of the municipalities do wish it, so we're going to look at it very carefully.

[ Page 1357 ]

Vote 13 approved.

On vote 14: police services, $26,447,180.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to say just first, very briefly, that I think we've been very fortunate in British Columbia in the people we've had to be assistant commissioners of the RCMP. We've had Gordon Cunningham, and then Ed Willes, and now the new appointee is Peter Bazowski, who has British Columbia experience and will make a very excellent deputy commissioner at headquarters in British Columbia. I wish him well and I think we are to be congratulated on getting that calibre person in B.C.

The other point I'd like to make briefly under this: if we're going to help the police, we have to see what's happened to that loan-sharking bill that minister Ouellet — was it? — was going to pilot through the House of Commons in Ottawa. Now when we talk about organized crime, as we have to, there's a whole area of organized crime involved in loan sharking, and that's set out in the report of CLEU. It's serious even in British Columbia. It's breaking some lives in terms of penury. It's killing some lives in terms of contract killing, and it's involving threats of bodily harm and other things to exact from unfortunate people who get caught in the toils of unconscionable, usurious interest rates.

This is a fertile field for organized crime, and while the police services can do so much, there's got to be a law behind them. The old loan-shark Act, the federal one, is just of no real help to us at all in this province. There should be a limit on the interest charged, you know, in that Act, so there's something that we can put our teeth into, and registration of people engaged in this business so the police have some kind of a handle to stop loan sharking becoming a major cancer in British Columbia, as it undoubtedly has become in cities like Montreal.

So I would hope that the Attorney-General would use his influence to.... I realize that interest is a federal matter, and there's a limit to what can be done in the province of B.C., but I hope that he will make sure that the federal government puts that at the top of their priority list in terms of criminal legislation before it is too late.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just in response, with the leave of the House, to a question raised by a member over there, the sheriffs complements are 9 sheriffs, 341 deputy sheriffs and 36 deputies being recruited for training.

I indeed subscribe to, and associate myself with, the remarks of the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) concerning the commissioners of the Royal Canada Mounted Police in this province, who have done an outstanding job. I, too, would indeed welcome commissioner Bazowski to the province. He has come here today, and we wish him very, very good health and a successful tenure in B.C.

I thank the member concerning his remarks regarding the loan-sharking legislation, and will certainly give it careful consideration.

MS. BROWN: Just two very brief questions. The hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) prior to the last election, Mr. Chairman, went around the province of British Columbia assuring everyone that there was a top-secret police force out there that was designed by the then Attorney-General, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), which constituted a threat to the life and limb of the people of British Columbia, and I'm wondering....

AN HON. MEMBER: Freedom.

MS. BROWN: Freedom of the people of British Columbia. I'm wondering whether the Attorney-General, under this vote, would be able to tell the House whether he's discovered this police force and all the guns and uniforms they were supposed to have and what he has done, if he has found a police force, to ensure the freedom which had been threatened by their alleged existence.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard, please proceed.

MS. BROWN: I'm wondering if the Attorney-General will tell us whether he has discovered this police force, because we are now concerned about the freedom of the people out there and all the guns and uniforms and things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 14 pass?

MS. BROWN: No, no, no!

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I think the Attorney-General should answer the question posed to him by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Interjection.

MR. KING: All right. I'll yield the floor and come back later.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You always look down when you stand up. Why do you do that?

MR. KING: That's since you joined the coalition party, I didn't use to look down at you when you were a Liberal.

[ Page 1358 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I thank the hon. member for her remarks and I'm glad to see that she's not being political, as she never is, this virgin child of politics across the way. (Laughter.) However, the police forces that are in the province, I think, are evident to everyone; we have the RCMP and we have the municipal forces. Those are the ones that I'm aware of. (Laughter) .

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Well, can we take it that the Attorney-General is dissociating himself with the remarks made by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've no idea what remarks she made.

MR. LEA: The public needs reminding.

MR. SKELLY: Well, yes, let's remind the people of the remarks she did make when she was travelling around the province for the past three years. She said that the socialist government was setting up a brown-shirted secret police, arming them, equipping them with cars. Has the Attorney-General found this not to be true?

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: He has dissociated himself from the remarks of the present Provincial Secretary?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important question because statements were made by the then, I think, president of the Social Credit Party or League and now Provincial Secretary, which created an impression about firearms. I would like to see the Attorney-General give us some sort of a reassurance about what types of firearms were purchased. What firearms do we have? I believe that there are some for sheriffs, for instance, in their custodial work, but these wild statements were made. It's fine for one government to deny it, but there is an office to uphold and the dignity of that office to uphold. It would certainly give some credence if the Attorney-General could make some comment about these things and, once and for all, put to rest the minds of the people. Otherwise, some people would, I think, assume that not only was there a secret police, but this government is continuing to retain them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I did respond to the question. I said that the police forces in this province consist of the RCMP and the municipal forces. If you consider the sheriff's office a police force, you can include them too — if you consider them. I don't consider the sheriffs office a police force per se.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary, when she was the president, or the chairman, or whatever you call it — the head bozo for the Social Credit League — went around this province saying that there was a secret police force and there was an arsenal of weapons being put away to supply that police force. I ask the Attorney-General: was she lying or was she telling the truth? Was she lying or telling the truth? It's that simple. She was either lying or telling the truth, and I want to know what the answer is to that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Well, I didn't want to break the questioning theme, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to raise another matter and that pertains to the agreement with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for staffing for police duties throughout the province. The Attorney-General knows that there have been problems in some of the rural areas of the province, particularly with respect to adequate staff to do a proper job of patrolling highway systems and so on that frequently become a kind of a racetrack or a drag strip because people with high-powered cars realize that the area is sparsely policed and generally free from patrol. I wonder how many complaints the Attorney-General's department has had, since the current government took office, from rural parts of the province indicating a dissatisfaction with the number of police officers available for highway patrol duty and so on. I wonder, have there been any such complaints?

AN HON. MEMBER: Haven't seen any.

MR. KING: No? Well, in my particular riding this has been a problem in the past. I would ask the Attorney-General to pay particular attention to the Slocan area between Nelson and Slocan City where it became a real problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the problem, Bill?

MR. KING: The main problem was, you know, drag-racing on the highway. It used to be, driving from Slocan City to south Slocan particularly, that the road was absolutely marred by burnt rubber. It was really something to behold in terms of the games that were played on that highway. I really don't criticize the RCMP detachment at Crescent Valley, I believe it is, because they certainly lack the manpower to do an adequate job. They were in the position where the staff was so sparse that they

[ Page 1359 ]

simply could only attempt to respond to the various complaints and calls they had, but in terms of any sustained patrol function there simply were not adequate staff to do that.

I appreciate that these things come and go, and it may not be the most serious kind of problem that faces and besets the province. Nevertheless, there were a number of lives lost. Particularly those people who live in the area and drive their automobiles to and from work, a period of some miles, it's a bit chilling, you know, to be threading the needle, as it were, through drag-strippers on a somewhat isolated road where they are free from patrols,

So I'll just draw it to the Attorney General's attention and ask him to give consideration and to maintain some dialogue with the RCMP detachments in isolated communities to determine the adequacy of their manpower.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The member made a very valid point. I gather the department has not received complaints. I believe one did come in, I've just been informed, from another area, Sparwood. But, of course, the people involved in that could well be charged with speeding, perhaps with driving without due care and attention, perhaps with reckless or dangerous driving. Of course, part of the problem is collecting the evidence, so if the citizens in the area would assist the police, that would be greatly appreciated.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm heartened on the one hand and a little alarmed on the other that the Attorney-General seems to be pleased with the programme carried on by the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs in their custodial duties. Yet a great disservice was done to this innovation in this province in terms of relieving the RCMP from escort duties and other things, and in fact, indeed, a separation of the police from the court matters, which I think is very important.

In the birth of this idea a very extreme disservice was done by the person who is presently the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). She did go around talking about a secret police force; the only thing it could have related to, in fact, was the sheriffs' programme. I know that the sheriffs are trained in small arms, that there is a firing range up on Burke Mountain, and that the people who are undergoing training with .38 revolvers, I believe. To my knowledge, they do not take training in any other type of weapons — not to my knowledge, although perhaps maybe they do.

Are there M-whatever rifles or automatics? Are there automatic weapons? These are the types of questions and the things that one was led to believe by the statements of the now Provincial Secretary when she was the president of the Social Credit

League. I think that it's incumbent upon the Attorney-General, at this time, to clear up this misapprehension for once and for all. Clear it up. Why is the Attorney-General leaving?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll answer that question.

MR. NICOLSON: Don't answer that question, Mr. Attorney-General. You'll answer the question I have asked? Then why are you leaving?

This, Mr. Chairman, was an irresponsible statement. Now it was either a truthful statement or an untruthful statement. If it was a truthful statement, then the people have a right to know. Perhaps even the former Attorney-General should be censured for not having brought out the information — even though he's a friend of mine, a colleague and a man for whom I have a great respect.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a state secret.

MR. NICOLSON: Really, the present Attorney-General must act. He must act, because the former Attorney-General said that there was no substance in it. I don't know if he said it was a lie, but either it's a lie or it's the truth. It's one or the other. I think it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General to clear this up, that a great disservice was done to this very worthwhile move when the concept of relieving trained police officers from these routine custodial duties....

If you were a rural member, such as I am, and you had occasion to travel in and out of the Castlegar airport you'd realize that RCMP officers have years of training. Before they go on the job they have a great deal of training and that training continues, and they continue to improve their level of qualification. These highly trained people were not our enforcing laws; they were doing something which could be better done, or as well done, by someone else — escorting people to the courts from the area in which they were perhaps detained, having detained them from the Vancouver institutions, taking them back to the courts in the areas in which the crimes had been committed.

So this was a good concept. It was a good concept and it was marred, I think, despicably maligned if there was no basis in fact in the remarks made by this present Provincial Secretary prior to being, of course, elected and during the time in which she was not an elected member of this House. So either there's truth in this or it was a despicable act maligning a very worthwhile and praiseworthy...

MR. LEA: Just a plain, ordinary lie.

MR. NlCOLSON: ...institution which everybody.... The judges I've talked to, lawyers I've

[ Page 1360 ]

talked to, members of the RCMP with whom I've talked, and in fact the sheriff in the Nelson district with whom I've talked, are all supportive of this idea, and yet a shadow was cast upon it. I think that the Attorney-General could have answered this quite simply; now it's getting to a point where it could almost become ridiculous that it not be answered.

I would urge the Attorney-General to get up and reassure this House and the people of British Columbia that there is no hidden arsenal, that there's no secret police. Don't just get up and tell us that we have the city police forces, the RCMP and sheriffs. But is there some sinister force or isn't there? Was there a real, malignant rumour spread by the person who is presently the Provincial Secretary at the time during which she was not an elected member of this House but the president of the Social Credit Party?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is this? What's her name?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I don't name people in this House because....

MR. LEA: Who was the president of the Social Credit Party in the past year?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, the president of the Social Credit Party at the time the statements were made was Grace McCarthy, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure it wasn't Charlie? (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, either there has been a malignant rumour spread by the former president of the Social Credit Party, or it was a fact. I would like the Attorney-General to take this opportunity under this vote which covers the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, which I think she was trying to misinterpret at that time, trying to create public hysteria — and did very successfully, make no mistake about that.... She did a very successful job in her capacity as president of the Social Credit Party. She resorted to lengths that I wouldn't use in seeking political power, but it was successful, I admit that.

I think that now it's time the Attorney-General, the chief officer of law and a person charged with this responsibility and charged with being, I think, above politics, charged with being above politics in this very important position.... I would hope that he would stand and reassure this House that there was no basis in fact in those maliciously spread rumours, lies and innuendos.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to interrupt the proceedings of the House for just a moment to introduce the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much. It's not often the member for South Peace River has the opportunity to introduce a group of students from his constituency, and I thank the House for giving me this opportunity this afternoon.

In the gallery is a group of students from the Chetwynd Secondary School. This group comprises 19 students with their teacher, Michael Reid, and they call themselves "The Chetwynd Voyageurs." I'd like the House to welcome them this afternoon, students from the great Peace River country.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has two very simple and straightforward choices. He can repudiate the remarks made by the then president of the Social Credit Party, the Hon. Grace McCarthy, now Provincial Secretary, when she claimed repeatedly on numerous occasions and in numerous places throughout the province of British Columbia that there existed in the province of British Columbia a secret police force with a secret cache of arms — a secret cache of guns hidden away somewhere.

We ask the Attorney-General in all seriousness to repudiate these remarks and to bring to the province of British Columbia that fact which we knew, and which our party knew as government, which was that we were proposing a sheriffs service of first-rate quality, value and worth. There was no secret police then; there is no secret police now. If you have discovered one now, tell us now. If there is none now, repudiate the remarks of the past president of the Social Credit Party, the Hon. Grace McCarthy, Provincial Secretary.

The choice is very simple, Mr. Attorney-General. Was she correct or not? She stated repeatedly throughout British Columbia that there existed a secret police force with a secret cache of arms. Was she correct or not? A yes or no will do. If you say yes, she was correct, identify the secret police, tell us where the arms are hidden and tell us what you are going to do about it. If your response is no, she was not correct, then tell us that. Repudiate the remarks that she made which have cast a very bad light on the sheriffs service of the province of British Columbia, for which you are now responsible. Repudiate those remarks for once and for all. Tell us, tell this legislature, and tell the people that she was wrong, wrong, wrong — that every charge she made about a secret police was false — consistently, repeatedly false from beginning to end. You have an opportunity, Mr. Attorney-General, to set the record straight on behalf of your own department. Tell us today what we know to be the case. There never was a secret police

[ Page 1361 ]

force; there is not such a secret police force today. That is the very simplest choice: yes or no. Was she right or wrong?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to caution hon. members that the proper names of individuals who are members of this House...it is not customary for us to use them. If you wish to refer to them as a newspaper clipping or something like that, it is permissible, but to refer to them as the member who just took his seat has done, it is not customary in this House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the Attorney-General really, as the chief law-enforcement officer in this province, will clarify for us one simple matter. Did the Provincial Secretary speak truthfully when she said that there was a secret army or police force with guns and uniforms in existence in this province which constituted a threat to the freedom of the people of this province? If, in fact, he has found, since becoming the Attorney-General, that there is no such secret force, then I would like to ask that the Attorney-General charge the Provincial Secretary with public mischief, because that is precisely what she did. She should be charged under the law with creating a public mischief and if found guilty should resign her seat.

We are calling on the Attorney-General to do his job. We have just voted him a very handsome salary to run his office. Part of his responsibility is the police service. Now was there a secret police force? If there was not a secret police force, then a crime has been committed — an act of public mischief. Maybe not a crime, but an act of public mischief was committed by the present Provincial Secretary, a member of the government. It is the responsibility, then, of the Attorney-General to see to it that justice is done. An example has to be set. We cannot tolerate people going around this province creating the kind of disturbances which were created by that member before she was a member of this House — the fear, the anxiety and the paranoia which was fostered by the statements made by that member before she was a member of this House. She must be punished if there was, in fact, no truth in the allegations which she circulated.

However, is it possible that she did speak truthfully and that, in fact, the Attorney-General has found a secret police? Is he prepared to tell us about it or is he hiding it so that he can use it in some way himself? So really the Attorney-General has to do one of two things: say to the House there is no secret police force — "I have found no secret police force" — at which time he will have to lay a charge of public mischief against the present Provincial Secretary. If found guilty, she must resign. Or else he must say to the House: "There is a secret police force but it is a secret and I don't want anyone to find out about it." Those are two options open to him.

Mr. Chairman, it is here in the Vancouver Province of May 12, 1973. I am quoting — this is the only reason why I am using the hon. member's name because I would not transgress on the dignity and the honour of this House.

It says here: "Grace McCarthy, former Social Credit Minister Without Portfolio, says that the B.C. government is forming a secret police force under the new B.C. Energy Act." That minister is responsible also for ensuring whether, in fact, under the new B.C. Energy Act, such a secret police force was in existence. Then she starts to talk about all the terrible things that this secret police force would be doing: "...reaching the minds of the young and then they form a secret police force, which is what they are doing today. She called on the Social Credit and Conservative Parties to join hands to remove the foreign philosophy from this province."

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: There you are, Mr. Attorney-General. Tell us: have you found a secret police force and is it now a secret? Because if you share this secret with the House, we will keep it a secret, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MS. BROWN: We will understand that the Attorney-General has found a secret police force which he would like to remain a secret, and so he doesn't want us to tell anyone else about it. We will respect that wish. If he has not found a secret police force and he does not want to keep it a secret, then he has to admit that the hon. Provincial Secretary, before she became the hon. Provincial Secretary, did, in fact, go around this province creating an atmosphere of fear and anxiety. A public mischief I think, is the legislation under which she should be charged. I am not sure; it may be sedition. I don't know. I wouldn't dare tell the Attorney-General what Act to charge her under. What other Acts are there? I am not sure, but surely there is an Act.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Okay. But in fact, you know, Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General would admit that the hon. Provincial Secretary was as correct in her

[ Page 1362 ]

first warning — that, in fact, there is a secret police force — as she was in her second warning about the coalition being formed.... Because the coalition was formed; they did join hands and form the coalition. So she was quite accurate in her second statement. But as for the first statement, the one that has to do with the secret police force, if she was in fact not telling the truth, then surely the responsibility of the chief law-enforcement officer of this land — the protector of justice of all the people, the protector of freedom of all the people of British Columbia — demands that the hon. Attorney-General lay a charge under whatever legislation there is to lay a charge under and that that minister be brought before the courts for creating a public mischief in this province.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I would like to have the Attorney-General answer not only the questions put to him by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard, but also I would like to have him tell me if he, as chief law officer of this province, knows anything about the existing new force that we don't know about. That's the one that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has been telling us about that is going to go around and do an investigative job on this $80 million worth of fraud that he has been telling us is rampant in this province. That $80 million worth of fraud is a very serious defalcation of funds and evidently, if we can believe the statements of the Minister of Human Resources, represents....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I interrupt the member just long enough to remind him that we are on vote 14?

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a law-enforcement situation, and I am wondering whether the Attorney-General has referred this very important question to the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 14 is on police services. Some of the questions which you are asking now might better have been asked under the minister's vote, under his salary vote.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, if the miscreants who are guilty of this $80 million alleged fraud are to be caught, I would think it would have to be done by a police force — by the RCMP, by a municipal force or by the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, which is under the Attorney-General. I would suggest that it is very much in order under this vote to ask these questions.

MR. SKELLY: It's a "fuzzy" jurisdiction.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with allegations that were made that a number of welfare recipients and a number of the 600 social-worker field staff of this province were party, by either sins of omission or commission, to fraudulent activities which cost the taxpayers of this province $80 million. I would like to have the Attorney-General possibly edify the House on whether or not he has even been asked for a report on this most serious defalcation of funds, whether he's had it referred to the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, or whether he's had any activities on it at all within his department.

An hon. minister of the Crown has made these suggestions not once but several times, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. I would like the situation cleared up. Either this kind of defalcation of funds is going on — and I believe it would amount to several hundred thousand dollars per social worker if it was — either that, or we certainly want to clear the professional name and the legal name of the field staff who are involved in making decisions on how social assistance is disbursed in this province.

Most certainly I don't like the idea of a kind of a backroom force, people going around and asking citizens of this province, and professional people in this province, questions — the snoop squad.

In fact I phoned one of the Human Resources offices in my riding about this very question and asked them if they'd seen any evidence of the minister's snoop squad. They said: "No, but there were a couple of guys in here the other day whom we didn't know to fix a typewriter." I said: "What's so unusual about that? Typewriters need fixing." He said: "Well, we never had typewriter repairmen wearing suits before." Evidently it turned out that they were from Nelson Stationery, or some very reputable company.

Certainly the House needs to know as much as we can about this because your department has come under fire in the estimates, Mr. Attorney-General, for being short of funds in certain areas. Certainly if there was $80 million available this year that was not available last year, through fraudulent activities, I'm sure it could be put to good use, even in such areas as legal aid and many of the areas which we've had your department questioned about in terms of funding supply during these estimates.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, on May 11, 1973, this is from the Prince George paper:

"Social Credit researcher and former Minister Without Portfolio, Grace McCarthy, warned Thursday the provincial government is forming a secret police force under the terms of the new provincial Energy Act. Mrs. McCarthy told 500 party supporters attending a dinner here for former Premier W.A.C. Bennett that the police force is to be used to enforce the

[ Page 1363 ]

government's socialistic, monopolistic legislation. She said the force is mentioned in sections of the Energy Act which empowers the energy board to hire anyone to enforce terms and provisions of the Act.

"She went on to say that everywhere the socialists have gone in the world they first take over the control of the land, then infiltrate education to reach the minds of the young, and then they form a secret police, which they are doing now, she said."

Now I would like to first of all comment, Mr. Chairman, on the Attorney-General himself. When I sat on the other side of the House and he was a Liberal member, I had respect for the Attorney-General. When he decided to join the Social Credit Party I knew at that time that he must have some misgiving because of the kind of people he was going to have to associate with.

Now he cannot sit in his place without standing up and saying that what was said by the now Provincial Secretary was the truth, because it was a lie that was being spread by the hon. Provincial Secretary when she was president of the Social Credit League. You can't just sit, Mr. Chairman.

You know, people in this province actually believed that the New Democratic Party, when it was government, was forming a secret police to take away their freedoms. They believed that because the hon. Provincial Secretary went throughout this province saying it. It's not good enough.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're shouting!

MR. LEA: You're darned right I'm shouting!

You know, it's a lie; that's what it is. It was a lie! The Provincial Secretary was going out and telling the people of this province — that's what it was, pure and simple — a lie!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General should answer that question. Either the Provincial Secretary was revealing a state secret, or she should be charged with public mischief. There was a fellow in Russia who called the Minister of Culture a fool — now that didn't happen in B.C. — and he got five years for seditious libel and 10 years for revealing a state secret. (Laughter.)

If we did form a police force under the Energy Act.... But the member for Prince Rupert...it isn't funny; these statements were made and they were believed by a lot of people. I think it was a most unfortunate episode in the history of B.C. that that kind of mischief should have been going abroad in the province.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not for me, hon. members, to reflect upon the alleged past remarks of any member of this Legislature. I would certainly mention in response to the opposition's political attack this afternoon — which is coming for very obvious reasons; I mean, this is not really fooling anybody either — that if they felt so strongly about the issue when this occasioned, as I understand from the hon. member for Prince Rupert, in 1973, they had ample opportunity to take such steps as they deemed appropriate, or any citizen would have an opportunity to have done that.

I've informed this House three times this afternoon, and I'll do so again, that as far as I know, the only police forces in this province consist of the RCMP and the municipal forces.

If you consider that a sheriffs' force is a police force too, I would include that. Now I don't know of any others, either today or in the past.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll accept the statement made by the Attorney-General because that's what I also believe to be true in terms of the police forces that exist. I would just like to say, though, that the Attorney-General said that this has been a political thing, and certainly it is political. It was political when it was started; it was political when these statements were made, Mr. Attorney-General, and make no mistake about that. I think a certain phrase has struck a cord of familiarity with the Attorney-General.

But had the Attorney-General of the day perhaps laid charges, there would have been a great outcry: here's the president of a political party being persecuted. I would only say that the present Attorney-General would be in a better position — he would certainly be beyond any political accusations — and that he should look at this objectively in that a public mischief was created and that a response should be made. At least the people of British Columbia can be reassured by the Attorney-General that there is no secret police force, and that the former president of the Social Credit Party was spreading a lie during the last election campaign which existed from 1972 to 1975.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to deal with CLEU in the two excellent reports that have been produced by that organization, and just to quote from the first report.

In the beginning there are four quotations from various authorities; one says: "Organized crime is an actual society interested in anything which is profitable." This was said by Eve Prevost in an inquiry into the crime justice in society in Quebec in 1969. There is a subsequent quote: "Vancouver and

[ Page 1364 ]

Seattle are serious problems." This was said by John R. Bartells, Jr., administrator of drug enforcement in the U.S. Department of Justice, 1974.

Then the first report goes on to outline in some detail many of the activities of organized crime which exist in British Columbia. Again in the second report, which was published, I guess, in December of 1972, at the end there is a reference to the crime commission feasibility study. It's to this point that I wanted to see whether we could get the Attorney-General to respond. The statement says:

"In our crime commission study we are attempting to determine the necessity and the desirability of the implementation of a British Columbia crime commission along similar lines to the Ontario crime probe and the Quebec crime commission.

"We are currently assembling material relating to the different methods of implementing effective crime commissions. Preliminary indications are that certain legislative provisions are already in effect enabling the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council to call such an inquiry to be made in any matter relating to the administration of justice in the province."

The reason I raise this is because in going through the reports, particularly in the first report in reference to the drug trade in British Columbia, there is a statement that the amount of money that was handled in 1974 — and I would suggest that there is probably something in the neighbourhood of $300 million — which is the involvement of the drug trade in British Columbia.... Perhaps what we're dealing with in Vancouver itself is something like $15 million to $18 million dollars a month.

I was wondering whether, in the investigations that the CLEU people have been doing, they have been able in any way to track down the significant amounts of money which have been handled every month. Now I realize that not all of this money stays in the province. It has also been suggested in the various reports, particularly in relation to the entry of organized crime into business, that much of this money is being washed that way. I think all of this really leads me to believe — after having participated very much over the past, certainly, 17 years, prior to 1972, and being involved in the corrections field — that have we not, Mr. Attorney-General, come to the time when it is necessary for us in this province to in fact have a crime commission?

We have, after all, two-thirds of the drug trade of Canada and, flowing from that, all of the crime involved because of the large amounts of money in the drug trade, plus the entry, as has been suggested in the report, into the stock market, into all sorts of commercial frauds, and into what my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) talked about, the loan sharks.

I think it would be in the interests of all of the systems of this province if we could bring this particular problem, and it is a problem that we have lived with in this province for 40 years, and in perhaps a more real way, over the past 25 years.... Those people who can recall the crime commission in 1956 which related to the Vancouver police force.... What was really interesting was certainly the kinds of information that came out about the activities in relation to the underworld which was really not the central point of the commission at that time.

In view of the activities of the crime commission in Quebec, the recent ruling by the supreme court, this is a procedure that can be carried out. I would ask the Attorney-General if he does not think that at some time in the near future, hopefully...that he does not think it is in the best interests of the protection of the 'public that we have a crime commission in British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member's made a very good point. The matter in question is being studied by the policy analysis division of CLEU. Now I don't want to give the hon. member the impression that a crime commission is to follow that, but the initial steps have been taken.

MR. BARBER: I would like to express, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, my disappointment that he hasn't taken this opportunity to clear up the record of his own sheriff service once and for all.

I want to express my own amazement that in this House the word "lie" has been used on four occasions, and no one has interjected. I can only presume that the accommodating silence means that the accusation is correct, that the people of British Columbia were deliberately misled...

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: ...were deliberately misled by the now Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you just take your seat momentarily until we correct the procedures?

The Chair has been very lenient because on a very thin technicality I have not called previous debate out of order in the use of attributing a lie to a present member of this House, now again, to use the term to technically "mislead" the House as a member before they were a member of this House.

The standing orders specifically provide that you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly. I have had considerable consultation at the table here and I must, in all good conscience, call a halt to this

[ Page 1365 ]

line of debate. It is clearly very technically in order because the member has said this took place before the member was a member of the House. But, please, I think rather than to see how close we can come to breaking the rules, let's do the good thing and abide on the safe side of the rule. We cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly.

Is it well taken?

MR. BARBER: I'll rise again in a moment, if I may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this on a point of order?

MS. BROWN: Yes, just on a point of order you could clarify for me. How does a member of this House deal with another member when it is very clearly proven that a mis-statement has been made? How do you say...?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay, just a minute. If there is, in fact, proof that an hon. member has not been completely honest in a statement made either in this House or about this House, how does another hon. member get up and say that that hon. member lied?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

To the question proposed by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), in this House all members are hon. members, and in this House we cannot impugn improper motives to other members. As a result, even though the judgments as to whether or not something is truthful, untruthful, right or wrong — those are value judgments which cannot be made within this room and impugning the motives of another hon. member.

The Chair must hold very tenaciously to this ruling because the Chair must protect all hon. members, and as a result, cannot allow the impugning of improper motive.

I hope that this substantive motion....

MR. BARBER: I accept your ruling. I would merely express my own feelings that the Attorney-General's delicate choice of language reflects his delicate position. He is, after all, a member of a coalition government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: His private opinion on the remarks referred to may, of necessity, differ from what he is compelled to say today. It's clear, though, that this is a source of much embarrassment to him — the whirling of his chain and the glance away of his eyes might betray some of that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't have a chain.

MR. BARBER: One of the real advantages, Mr. Chairman, of sitting on the other side of the House is the opportunity to read the faces and the eyes — the human expressions and feelings and emotions — of the members opposite. It's one of the ways we feel that we might learn something about the personal and individual opinions of the members of the government. I read the Attorney-General's face and believe I can construe embarrassment.

I want to bring up another matter, though, of some embarrassment to all of us as members of this Legislature. I want to refer to the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, and I want to discuss specifically the increasing problem of the possession of and the trafficking in cocaine in the province of British Columbia. I want to ask the Attorney-General what he intends to do about it. I want to ask the Attorney-General, responsible for CLEU, to inform and enlighten this Legislature about the strategy that he may be developing publicly and, to the extent that he feels discretion allows it, privately, to deal with the phenomenon of cocaine addiction and trafficking in the province of British Columbia.

Cocaine is a drug which, pharmacologically, is addicting. It is demonstrably more addicting and physiologically more damaging than most other addicting drugs, including heroin itself. It is a drug which in this province happens to be the plaything of the very rich. The cost of the drug and the circumstances of its trafficking tend at the moment, according to the information I have, to restrict its use to the very wealthy in the province of British Columbia. It is, in fact, an addicting drug. It is a drug which is the subject of increasing trafficking throughout the province of British Columbia, and it's clear, by all accounts, that the people who do that trafficking are increasingly the same people who traffic in other obnoxious drugs in this province.

I would predict, Mr. Chairman, that in the province of British Columbia we will see develop in the next several years a rising consciousness and awareness of the problem of cocaine addiction, and I would ask through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General tell us something of his thoughts on the matter, something of his instructions to CLEU regarding this addiction, and something of his expectations about what may result.

In greater Victoria and greater Vancouver it's been known and observed for the last four years that this increase rises proportionately and markedly year after year. Cocaine addiction is a most serious medical and social problem, growing in consequence month by month. Because its history is that of a drug most often used by the very rich, it's not the kind of thing that has, so far, attracted very much public attention. I would ask, through you, Mr. Chairman, the

[ Page 1366 ]

Attorney-General to inform us of his thoughts, his worries, his information, his strategies — to the extent that he feels, in discretion, he can reveal them — to tell us something of his own commitment to breaking the back of this particularly obnoxious form of addiction and trafficking in the province of British Columbia, and to let us know how he intends to proceed as soon as he can.

The Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit was the first serious attempt ever, in the history of the province of British Columbia, to deal year in and year out with the problem of organized crime in this province. I think it's one of the things for which the previous Attorney-General can be most highly commended. I want to know what the present Attorney-General intends to do to maintain the excellent start and excellent work of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, and, if I may repeat for the third time, in particular what he intends to do about the increasing problem of cocaine addiction and cocaine trafficking in the province of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Attorney-General about the physical criteria for entrance into the police college.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Men and women.

MS. BROWN: No. If that were all, that would be good enough, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, but I understand that there are different height criteria. Maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, or check with the Deputy Attorney-General, but I understand that women are required to be five feet, four inches and men are required to be five feet, nine inches. I'm not quite sure what it is about a woman that makes her a good policeperson at five feet, four inches and a man needs an additional five inches in order to meet those kinds of criteria too. I've known some five foot, four inch men who wouldn't be too bad, really, as police officers. I'm wondering why the Attorney-General is discriminating against men in this way, and whether there shouldn't be just one physical criterion....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It is discrimination against men. I'm not going to tolerate discrimination against men, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): You're too big, Emery.

MS. BROWN: In all seriousness, why don't you have one set of criteria for both? Would you give me the rationale for having two separate sets of criteria?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd probably have to go back to the days of Adam and Eve to attempt to find an answer to that question. I don't know what the height requirements are, I have to confess, and I'm afraid no one around me knows at the present time.

Dealing with the member for Victoria's (Mr. Barber's) remarks concerning the work of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, this is a programme that has certainly thrilled me and, I think, all members of the province since its inception.

I too would like to congratulate, as I have done in the past, those responsible for bringing it into being and the many, many hard-working and dedicated people who are involved in that programme today. It is ongoing insofar as the trafficking in narcotics is concerned. This is one of the most serious things that is besetting us.

I'm not satisfied that we have made effective progress under the former administration or under the former, former, or anywhere back in time. I'm hopeful that we're going to be able to improve. We're going to direct our attention to that aspect. It's a question of health; it's a question of morality; it's a question of ethics. It's not only a question of law enforcement, as the hon. member well knows. We're certainly not going to tolerate it. I've always taken the position when I was in opposition in this House that we had to have a war on crime, and my attitude to that has not changed.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd prefer not to give you specifics.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like first of all to pass on, I think, the support of people involved in the Nelson police commission and so on for the police school or academy. I'm just curious as to the reduction in the number of instructors from 14. Was it ever up to that complement? Were these people somehow attained through some other way, maybe by seconding people from various departments or something?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, they are seconded from other police forces.

Vote 14 approved.

On vote 15: correction services, $33,496,093.

MR. SKELLY: I'm concerned about a debate that's going on in Ottawa right now that the Attorney-General will probably be extremely interested in, a debate on capital punishment, or the abolition. I'm wondering what the Attorney-General's position is, if and when that decision is made by the federal government, about where the execution of the

[ Page 1367 ]

sentence of death will take place.

When I worked in the corrections branch of the B.C. Department of the Attorney-General I worked in the south wing at Oakalla Prison Farm. That is where the sentences of death were carried out, and it's a very dangerous situation. A very tense situation takes place in the prison at the time of the sentence of death, and I'm wondering what position the Attorney-General will adopt if... I understand 54 per cent of MPs in Ottawa favour retention of capital punishment. I wonder if the Attorney-General will take the position that the sentence of death will not be executed with the provincial institutions. Again, to emphasize, the tension that takes place within those institutions amounts to a threat to both the staff and the inmates of those institutions at about the time the sentence of death is to be carried out. I think it's far more dangerous to have that sentence take place in the institution. Should the federal government decide to retain capital punishment, I'm wondering just what position he plans to take on that location of the execution of the sentence of death.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd have to take that under advisement. The first I've ever heard of this is this afternoon. I'd look at it.

MR. SKELLY: Another thing I'm wondering about is alternatives to sentencing. Dragan Cernetic, the director of the B.C. Penitentiary, speaking in New Westminster some time ago, was discussing the fact that we are incarcerating far too many people in Canada. He mentioned a figure of 20,000....

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): That's not what the member for Omineca thinks.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: It costs something in the neighborhood of $15,000 to $16,000 a year to keep inmates in a penitentiary or in a prison.

I recall that when I was working in Oakalla in 1967-68-69 there were two employees for every inmate in that system. It seemed to be a tremendous waste of staff. Some of the people — according to Dragan Cernetic, two-thirds of the people — really could have been better handled or better treated outside of the institution. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General has been examining some alternatives to institutional sentences, to incarceration.

I was looking at a press release from the Solicitor-General of Canada where a study has beer launched in Alberta, and I believe the Law Reform Commission of Canada also has been looking at alternatives to sentencing. Is there anything being done in British Columbia to try to relieve pressure on those correctional institutions, anything being done to relieve pressure on those institutions to try to treat offenders in society through alternatives to sentencing?

One of the things that's being done in Alberta is restitution. It's a three-year study that's being carried out in conjunction with the Solicitor-General of Canada (Hon. Mr. Allmand) where persons convicted of crimes involving no violence — robbery, B and E, vandalism, theft, this type of thing — will be permitted to make restitution to those who were victims of the crime. Is the Attorney-General involved in any of those studies, and has he in mind any alternatives to sentencing within British Columbia?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. As the member knows, the department has been involved in community service order programmes. We have the impaired driving courses, the attendance programmes, and the community correctional centres — which is slightly different. We're looking at the alternative measures, as is the rest of the country.

MR. SKELLY: One final question. When the NDP was in government over the previous 39 months, we were looking at phasing out some of the larger institutions such as Haney correctional institute, Oakalla Prison Farm — or Lower Mainland Regional Correctional Centre — and Wilkinson Road jail. I wonder if the Attorney-General can give us some kind of time frame as to when those large institutions will be phased out and more community-oriented treatment centres will be built. Do you have any time frame in mind? Are projections being done within your department?

HON. MR. GARDOM: As the member knows, I did request an overview of the correctional centres in the province. It has been delivered to me and I've not had an opportunity to read it. The bound side of the paper stands about three feet high, and then there is a summary which I have not yet been able to address myself to. But we're following a programme along that line, hopefully. I can't give you a time frame. The former administration wasn't able to do it; nor was the one before that.

MRS. WALLACE: My point, Mr. Chairman, is a very local point. I raised it in a general way when we were talking about the minister's salary estimates, but this is to do with the probation and special corrections programmes. I referred specifically at that time to a programme that had been in operation in the Duncan area on Vancouver Island whereby, I believe $18,000 was contributed from the Attorney-General's department towards the alternative school that is in operation there, on the

[ Page 1368 ]

understanding that the courts could refer young people to this school.

It has been proving a very valuable asset in the Cowichan Valley. The children attend formal classes for two days and then for the remainder of the week they take part in actual work programmes with machinery. The people in charge take contracts from people needing work done, and these young people get work experience right in the field of operating the equipment that they're learning to operate. It's preparing them for rehabilitation into society, and it's really regretful to me and to the people of the Duncan area to learn that you are considering withdrawing this grant. I would urge you to reconsider this and make it possible to see that that is continued.

Vote 15 approved.

Vote 16: justice councils, $374,285 — approved.

Vote 17: Legal Services Commission, $7 million — approved.

On vote 18: Justice Development Commission, $1,532,903.

MS. BROWN: I'm not sure whether this is the right vote or whether it should have been under vote 17, but is the funding for groups like VCLAS and the People's Law School under this vote?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Under the Legal Services Commission.

MS. BROWN: Oh, so I missed it under 17. In any event, maybe the Attorney-General would be able to tell us whether the increased funding which they've put in for is going to be dealt with or whether they're in jeopardy at all.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The Legal Services Commission does that, Madam Member — not the department.

Vote 18 approved.

On vote 19: legal services to government, $1,740,361.

MR. MACDONALD: A short question. There's an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Canadian Transport Commission, which found that it had jurisdiction in the PWA takeover. Now the company are taking them to Ottawa and the Supreme Court of Canada. Are you going to intervene in that appeal and take the position that they do have jurisdiction?

HON. MR. GARDOM: We're taking it under consideration.

MR. MACDONALD: Are you looking for a lawyer? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, if we were, we might have to look further. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, come on! We're old friends — don't be so sensitive.

Vote 19 approved.

Vote 20: provincial court judiciary, $4,609,348 — approved.

Vote 21: coroners, $792,255 — approved.

On vote 22: British Columbia Parole Board, $120,800.

MR. MACDONALD: Is any progress being made in persuading the federal government to release to our B.C. Parole Board the paroling with respect to all provincial crimes? It is so fragmented now it is ridiculous. Some people go to the Ottawa board. Is there any progress being made in that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I gather not much. The talks go on indefinitely. But they're communicating, so that is progress, I trust.

MR. MACDONALD: Do you know any Liberals in Ottawa?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I know a few. I even know a few Conservatives and a few Social Crediters...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, you don't!

HON. MR. GARDOM: ...and a few NDP, but I'd better not name them.

Vote 22 approved.

On vote 23: Law Reform Commission, $272,934.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, speaking as always as a layman in this department, I wouldn't want, nor would I think the Attorney-General would want, this vote to pass without some congratulations for the Law Reform Commission as to the marvelous work they are doing.

[ Page 1369 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. GARDOM: When the time comes for me to do it, I will be filing one of their reports this afternoon, Mr. Member. I thoroughly agree with your sentiments.

Vote 23 approved.

Vote 24: Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, $889,500 — approved.

Vote 25: British Columbia Liquor Control Board, $50,000 — approved.

On vote 26: corporate, financial and regulatory services, $5,510,076.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General lost his Racing Commission under very strange circumstances.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's under this vote. In some respects I realize there is a problem in terms of the federal government, through the Agriculture minister, Ed. Whelan, getting into the act. But I think it's disgraceful that we kind of knuckle down to the federal government setting racing days in the province of British Columbia. It is absolutely ridiculous. You have got a section under the Criminal Code of Canada.... I am looking at another Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) as I say these things and I say: What under the Criminal Code and what under the federal Minister of Agriculture has he got to do with setting racing days and then taking — what is it? — half of 1 per cent of the parimutuel bets.

When you rejected the recommendation of your Racing Commission...it seems to me they were the ones to listen to this argument. I have no doubt the feds were kicking something and I wonder why. The Racing Commission recommended 16 days. They had kind of the jurisdiction of the thing because their Act says they control and run the racing in the province of B.C. — an independent body. The government cuts them back, I think, from 16 to six days. There's no overlapping with the thoroughbreds, or if there is it's very small. Now the Attorney-General says that's because of the Ottawa government getting into the act.

When I look at the Criminal Code — this thing comes under the Criminal Code, section 188 — I think it's ridiculous. Section 188(3) says: "No parimutuel system of betting shall be used in any race unless the system has been approved and its operation carried on under the supervision of an officer appointed by Mr. Whelan." It doesn't say that here but that's what it means. "The person conducting the race shall pay to the Receiver-General one half of 1 per cent." That money goes to, really, just pay for their inspection service.

What I say is that this is not criminal law; this is an invasion of property and civil rights in the province. It does not cover fixing of racing days, even by its language. The government of the province of B.C. should not have knuckled under to the federal government and said: "No, we can't give Cloverdale these racing days for harness, because it's against the Criminal Code of Canada." Now, really, do we run our own house here or not? I say it was a big mistake to do that. If they say that includes setting the racing days, it's surely unconstitutional. There are still some things reserved to civil rights within the province and the operation of our own concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Here we've got the province of Quebec making progress in communications, they may make progress in immigration — in fact they have — they want constitutional guarantees, and here we can't even run our own racetracks.

In Quebec, as I understood it, if somebody like Agriculture minister Whelan comes in and says don't give those harness days to Cloverdale because they might conflict with the thoroughbred guys at Exhibition Park and you might have some overlapping, the province of Quebec wouldn't listen to them. They wouldn't listen to them. They'd say that's nothing to do with the federal government, it's nothing to do with criminal law. We're not going to prosecute anybody or anything of the kind. Yet this government knuckled down and changed the recommendations of their duly appointed body. They say it's all Ottawa's fault, and I cannot accept that. I think those people who resigned from the Racing Commission did so on perfectly valid grounds. They had every reason to think that a non-political decision that they had made, in the best interest of the public and the purse and the sport as they saw it, would be carried out.

The previous government and governments for years have never rejected the recommendation of their racing commission. Now look at the kind of thing we get into here. Here's a federal Agriculture department fellow saying that Ottawa questioned whether it would be economic to have the two meets running at the same time. Now really, why would Ottawa have anything to say about whether it's economic to run the two meets at the same time? Because it may cost them the salary of an extra inspector or something? If they don't have one there send your own stewards in. I say that the Racing Commission resigned on perfectly valid grounds. The political decision should not have been made in

[ Page 1370 ]

Victoria, and the one that was made was a wrong decision and interference and contrary to the Racing Commission Act. You just need to turn around and ask the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who is an expert on these matters, and I think he'll agree with me.

Are you going to have another commission and is it going to be independent, or will they be overruled? Or is Agriculture minister Whelan running local affairs in the province of British Columbia? I say it's disgraceful!

AN HON. MEMBER: Show some courage, Garde.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, responding to the member: the federal Department of Agriculture refused, in essence, to give these people an opportunity to have their parimutuel on the days in question. Now conceivably they could have raced, but they wouldn't have been able to have betting. I don't differ with the position taken by the member that this could well be an infringement on the constitutional right of the province, and that fact has been clearly brought home to Ottawa. At the present time, as the member mentioned, there's not an overlapping day, though there is one in the fall, and I hope that as a result of negotiation we will be able to have the thing effectively resolved before too long.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, all I say is that I think you need confrontation. You've been listening to the thoroughbreds.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, that's not true.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I believe the fire marshal's office comes under this vote. I would like to ask the minister for some information on the implementation of the Hugh Keenleyside report which was tabled on May 31 last year. I did ask some questions of the previous Attorney-General on this subject last year, especially relating to the high costs facing the smaller volunteer fire departments, of which we have several in my riding.

Over the past 39 months we've spent something like $42 million on community recreation facilities, and yet very little on fire services, and I was critical of the government for that. I feel that fire services, especially in a rural riding like mine, are very important services in terms of the loss of lives and property. As the Keenleyside report points out in its first two pages, the British Columbia fire record is the worst of any province in Canada.

I'll just give you a few examples from the first two pages of Part III of that report. In the 10 years from 1963 to 1972, we lost 94.8 lives, on the average, to fire, which is 75 per cent above the national rate. The per capita financial loss to fire in B.C. was $12.33, 75 per cent above the national rate for Canada. Residential fires were 88 per cent above the average rate for all the other provinces. Per capita losses through manufacturing plants were 50 per cent above the rate for the rest of Canada. For institutions and buildings of public assembly, again British Columbia's loss was $1.03 per capita.

The average for Canada was 55 cents. So our record, as far as fire protection in this province, has been the worst in Canada — worse than any other province, worse than the United States which has the worst record in the industrialized world, and it's been deteriorating, according to Mr. Keenleyside's statistics, over the year since the fire marshal's office was established.

I would like to know what the Attorney-General plans to do to assist in protecting the lives and property of people in British Columbia through improved fire-protection services. Following up on the recommendations of the Keenleyside report, what's being done to beef up the fire marshal's office?

In 1950 I understand the fire marshal's office had 21 or 22 employees. Under the estimates we have before us today, 26 years later, there are only 37 employees in the fire marshal's office. That's not really much of an increase when you consider the record of lives lost and property lost in this province over the past 26 years.

Only two of the 37 employees in the fire marshal's office are training staff. Two training staff out of 37 people — whereas a very few years ago, in 1950, there were eight people involved in training volunteer fire departments throughout the province. So over the past 26 years we have lost a large number of training staff in the fire marshal's office. I'd like to know just what the Attorney-General plans to do to beef up the fire marshal's office.

There was also a recommendation that the fire marshal's office be regionalized, that the inspection and training procedures and responsibilities of that office be distributed throughout the province, through Prince George, Terrace, and offices in Parksville, for example, in my riding, so building inspections could be done and fire protection services could be carried out on a more efficient basis. There appears to be nothing in the estimates of the fire marshal's office under this section of the Attorney-General's vote that would improve the service of the fire marshal's office or regionalize the inspection and training services. I am wondering just what the Attorney-General plans to do on that — if he's listening.

Thirdly, I am wondering if the Attorney-General plans to make funds available for the upgrading and provision of additional equipment to the smaller, rural volunteer fire departments, many of which exist in my riding. Many departments have seen the cost of

[ Page 1371 ]

fire protection equipment and the cost of services increase over the past 10 years. Fire equipment has doubled and tripled in price. These are volunteers who are contributing their time, their effort and risking their lives to protect people and property in small, rural and suburban communities, and they are being forced to do so with obsolete equipment — a lot of times inadequate equipment.

According to the Keenleyside report, two-thirds of all fire losses in this province take place outside of urban areas — in rural and suburban areas. I am wondering just what money the Attorney-General was planning to make available to these small fire departments to assist them in doing the job they should be doing. It's estimated that for every $1 million spent on fire protection in the province you can reduce the losses by about 10 per cent. Yet I see no increase whatsoever in the allocation to the fire marshal's office or to smaller rural volunteer fire departments to assist them in helping to reduce the loss of life and the loss of property as a result of fire in British Columbia.

The Keenleyside report also recognized a desperate need for training of fire-protection staff and firefighters in the province. I understand that there are vacant facilities at Riverview and the Haney Correctional Institute — facilities that could be used for fire-protection training with very little capital outlay, with very little operating cost. I am wondering if the Attorney-General is planning to set up the firefighters' training college that was recommended by the Keenleyside report when it was tabled March 31 last year. Perhaps the Attorney-General would answer those questions for me.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Referring to the Keenleyside report, Mr. Chairman, there are 44 separate recommendations in the report, and since the filing of the report, the government has received a number of briefs endorsing various of the recommendations in question. It appears to us that there are several priority issues that have appeared as a result of the preliminary study, and that's as far as we have got to at this point.

Following that preliminary study, I have appointed a study committee to review possible legislation and a consolidation of all the activities in the various fields that might affect fire fighting. That will be underway within the next few months, hopefully. We are also considering the possible appointment of a fire commission and regionalization of the fire marshal's activities through the establishment of branch offices in the province, and giving overall consideration to the training of firefighters.

Vis-a-vis branch offices, we're looking at the possibility of establishing a branch office on Vancouver Island during the present fiscal year, and I'm pleased to inform the House that we have increased the number of positions in the vote by four.

MR. MACDONALD: You are using my numbers from last year.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no, this is in 1976.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I'm pleased to hear that the fire marshal's staff is being beefed up, that at least one regional office is being created out of a recommended seven or eight, I believe, or nine. But I'm wondering about the actual volunteer fire departments that are in existence now, either under the Water Act or improvement districts — some of them organized under the Societies Act. Many of these don't have money to build firehalls, and don't have money to acquire fire equipment. Is the minister considering making money available to those smaller fire departments to upgrade the standard of equipment, to acquire firehalls and fire equipment?

They've never had this source of financing before, and they desperately need it now. As I pointed out to the minister, these people are volunteer firefighters. They are giving of their time, giving of their efforts, and risking their lives in many cases to protect lives and property in the province. I'm wondering if he's considering making money available to those volunteer fire departments to assist them in purchasing buildings and equipment that they desperately require this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 26 pass?

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver-Centre): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the Chair's indulgence while I ask permission of the Attorney-General to go back to vote 25. I was trying to get on my feet just as the vote was passing, and I just have a very short question. It's nothing provocative.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Could we finish 26 first and then come back?

MR. BARNES: Well....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, let her go!

MR. BARNES: Well, it won't take but a second; it's nothing that's going to give you any difficulty. It's just an inquiry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave of the House.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1372 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed on vote 25.

MR. BARNES: Could you comment briefly on the Sunday closing? I'm thinking specifically of the Gastown area where, as you know, it's a historical area in terms of tourism. This is under the Liquor Control....

AN HON. MEMBER: Sunday closing?

MR. BARNES: Yes, Sunday closing — the 10 o'clock closing for restaurants. If they have a licence and they're serving food, they're not allowed to have entertainment or dance and....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's vote 29.

MR. BARNES: Should it come under 29? Well, I'll just deal with it now. This isn't an argument; it's just an inquiry. I'm wondering if you could suggest what the position of the LCB is in that regard. I think in that area, if nowhere else, there is some validity for them being permitted to have a little more flexibility in terms of serving the public, especially where many tourists are coming in and the place closes down. You know, it's a bit of a problem. I just wonder if you could comment on that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Member, I think that is a matter that should come into consideration by the whole of the government once we establish the policy on the unproclaimed Liquor Act and the regulations.

MR. COCKE: I do a little idle reading every once in a while, Mr. Chairman, and on page.... I don't even have the page number here, unfortunately, but on April 29 in the B.C. Gazette I noticed a couple of orders-in-council that were passed, both under the Insurance Act. To the Attorney-General: that's your jurisdiction, to pass orders-in-council with respect to the Insurance Act — Mr. Cantell works for you.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Haven't you met him yet? Anyway, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. GARDOM: I knew him long before you did.

MR. COCKE: I'm sure you did.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I've known him a long, long time, indirectly and directly.

"Notice is hereby given that the First National Insurance Company of America was licensed on the 22nd day of April, 1976, under the Insurance Act, to undertake within the province of British Columbia fire insurance, accident insurance, automobile insurance, boiler insurance, excluding machinery insurance..." and all sorts of other insurance coverages.

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that not only the First National Insurance Co. of America, but also another insurance company at the same time, decided to seek registration — this is Unionamerica Reinsurance Company — so it is now authorized to undertake within the province of British Columbia, under its new name, fire insurance, accident insurance, aircraft insurance, automobile insurance, boiler insurance, earthquake and so on, and they give all various types of insurance.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me that unless there was some particular reason for them requesting specifically automobile, they would have probably excluded requesting getting licensed for automobile insurance.

I take it that they have some kind of relationship with this present government that indicates to them that there's a large possibility that they will be able to move in and compete in the automobile insurance industry. If they do, Mr. Chairman, that means that the government has successfully done what we had hoped they would not do, and this is put the wrecking bar successfully to the ICBC, the people's own insurance company.

Mr. Chairman, we will be watching with a good deal of anticipation with respect to this. I would like to know whether the Attorney-General.... I suspect that he doesn't know too much about it. He hasn't got some of his colleagues here to confer with, but if he has an answer to whether or not these two insurance companies have some special kind of information, I would like him to tell us.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not that I know of.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the section under which the Mortgage Brokers Act falls. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General can give me some information about unconscionable interest rates under the Mortgage Brokers Act.

I'll just give him an example of a mortgage that was written up on March 12 last year. I know that when he was a Liberal member of this House one of his partners, Mr. Brousson, used to bring up the Mortgage Brokers Act and the type of problems associated with the Mortgage Brokers Act. The previous government did a great deal to assist in cleaning up the Act and improving the operation of mortgage companies.

I'd just like to give an example of a mortgage that was drafted for an old-age pensioner in this province. He was originally sold siding by a travelling salesman for $5,800, and the same salesman agreed to

[ Page 1373 ]

consolidate other mortgages which this person had, to a total of $15,800. He charged a brokerage fee, or commission, or finder's fees of $2,000, for a total principal amount of $13,675, the effective interest rate being 21.5 per cent per year. This is an old-age pensioner, again. He was required to pay $226.48 monthly and the term of the mortgage was five years. At the end of the term of that mortgage he would owe $122 more than he borrowed originally under the terms of that mortgage.

I am wondering if the Attorney-General would investigate the whole field of mortgage lending in the province of British Columbia and possibly give instructions to the court as to what an unconscionable rate of interest is. Surely unconscionable rates are very difficult to decide. I would imagine you could leave it up to the discretion of the judge, but when a person borrows $15,800 and ends up after paying $226 a month for five years owing $13,000, or.... Sorry, the amount that he originally received is $13,600, and the amount that he finally ends up owing after five years is $100 more than he received in the first place. Surely there is some problem with the Mortgage Brokers Act, or with the whole field of lending and mortgages in the province of British Columbia. I am wondering if there is anything that the Attorney-General can do within his power to eliminate this type of unconscionable...really what amounts to loan sharking in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: By way of quick response to your question, Mr. Member, for the party whom you mentioned there are powers of redress under the Consumer Protection Act. Apart from that I tend to think that the questions you're raising more than likely more properly fall within the purview of my colleague the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) .

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, I'm rising really on a matter to do with cooperatives in the cooperative Associations Act.

Mr. Chairman, this Act was originally passed in 1955, and it has had amendments over the years. But from the information I have I think a complete review and a possible new Act should be looked at by the Attorney-General's department.

Mr. Chairman, over the past years since 1960 to 1970, there were something like 83 co-ops incorporated, with various purposes or objects. From 1971 to 1975 — I do not have 1976 figures — there were a total of 222 co-ops incorporated.

Mr. Chairman, they relate to a number of services. I have the memorandum of association for the Capital Cable cooperative, which, of course, deals with cable television. I have another one with regard to — I can't even pronounce it — the Syzygy cooperative community on Hornby Island which is "to promote the establishment, maintenance and growth of cooperative communities in British Columbia and to acquire, own and dispose of real estate."

I have another one, the Phoenix Food cooperative, which deals, of course, in the business of storekeeping: "to buy, sell, manufacture and deal in goods, stores, consumable articles, chattels, et cetera."

Then there's the Kootenay Health and Dental Care cooperative. So you can see the diversity of these various cooperatives, and I'm sure that in all instances the purpose of the cooperative is valid and is warranted in the minds of the people who seek incorporation. We have the Kilmer Consumers' cooperative in Port Coquitlam. One that is becoming very well known, of course, is the housing cooperative. There are a great number of those that have come on the scene in the last three or four years.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the Attorney-General that I would refer him to the Act and the fact that there is a tremendous amount of power — ancillary powers — that a cooperative can engage in under section 9 of the old Act. I think it covers something up to about 20 purposes. I won't take the time to read them, but it is considerable. I think a look at a new Act would do two things: (1) it would give flexibility to these new co-ops coming on the scene, and (2) it would ensure responsibility of those officers of the cooperatives in order that the shareholders in the cooperatives — the members of the cooperatives — are protected.

I think, Mr. Chairman, every member in this House is familiar with co-ops, the largest one, I think, being Surrey Co-op in Surrey. There's a Hub Co-op in Nanaimo, Salmon Arm, Revelstoke. In Prince Rupert there's a fishermen's co-op which is one of the most well known, successful cooperatives in the province.

Included in this Act, Mr. Chairman, are the marketing boards, which also are something that we are dealing with, and I think they've come on the scene far greater now than in 1955. I think it would be worthwhile to review the Act for the purpose of making sure that the flexibility is there to allow these co-ops to grow and prosper and to make sure that the member's investment is protected.

Mr. Chairman, one other thing in regard to the cooperative movement now and because it is growing rapidly, there are a number of things in this Act.... For example, an extraordinary resolution under the Act calls for three-quarters of those shareholders present to vote on an extraordinary resolution. I believe the Companies Act is two-thirds. Any five people can incorporate a co-op, and I wonder whether five people is a viable unit to incorporate a cooperative. And, of course, a section in the Act relates to the age of 21, which should be changed to the age of 19.

[ Page 1374 ]

One other thing, Mr. Chairman: the B.C. Central Credit Union in their cooperative service section department has dealt with the cooperatives because most cooperatives use that facility as their banker, have dealt with a model Act, and I think it would be worthwhile to use some of the input which comes from the people who are directly involved with cooperatives to assist the Attorney-General's department in reviewing the matter.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, the other part of the reason I'm standing is because I feel strongly that there is a need for an office of superintendent of cooperatives as opposed to having the superintendent of credit unions and cooperatives looking after two segments of the cooperative movement.

The number of co-ops being formed is growing greatly, and I think the task is just too great to have that department handling two factions of the cooperative movement — namely, credit unions dealing in finance and cooperatives dealing in anywhere from direct-charge co-ops to producer co-ops to retail co-ops — a great number of things. I think it would be worthwhile to have an appointment of a superintendent of cooperatives, and I believe under the present Act, section 44, this can be done. It would give better administration and it would give better protection to the cooperative members and it would give them guidance — guidance, Mr. Chairman, in new cooperative ventures. I believe very strongly that it is easier at the beginning of an organization to either discourage it because it won't be viable or to encourage it because it does have a future. But if it does run into bad times, the heartbreak and the ill-feeling at the winding up of such a venture is not nice to see. I think the government has a responsibility in making sure that the Act does outline the responsibilities of the officers of that co-op and the regulations under which that co-op should function. I would ask the Attorney-General to consider legislation for a new cooperative Act in the near future giving those co-op members the flexibility, the responsibility and the protection I think they require.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member has clearly indicated that the statute in question is in need of a review, and it is being reviewed.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was referring to the licensing of insurers, and apparently the practice that has been followed is the similar practice that has always been followed in the province. All insurers who want it are authorized by their licences, which are issued by the superintendent of insurance, to sell automobile insurance. The licences are issued for one year and whether they can or cannot sell depends upon the provisions of the Automobile Insurance Act.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Attorney-General, has he any plans to lower the rent freeze?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Aren't we onto that? I think so.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Isn't it the L and T — 26?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 26, Mr. Member.

MR. BARNES: Oh, you're waiting for that, too? Okay. I thought it was under section (e) on page 44. Whenever you're ready, but I may as well talk about it now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Rentalsman is under vote 26.

MR. BARNES: Okay, thank you. But, you know, the former administration intended to lower the freeze from 10.6 to 8 per cent, and the idea there was that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. The point you are discussing, is it under the rentalsman or is it under the rent review?

MS. BROWN: No, it's under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

MR. BARNES: No, it's under the Landlord and Tenant Act. It was included.... No, it was before...an interim bill, Bill 10, originally. It is now included under the Landlord and Tenant Act, I believe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the Chair have some guidance from the House?

MR. BARNES: I believe it's now included under the Landlord and Tenant Act, Bill 101.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: It's coming up eventually. I would suggest that because of the multiplier effect of that legislation as it stands now, it's becoming a real burden. The bill was intended as an interim measure, and if it stays at the 10.6 per cent per annum, as it stands now, and it doesn't go backwards, we really have a very serious situation. I think that what should happen, in terms of the future planning of the department, is to consider not just a freeze but a system, as I advocated earlier, of rent review boards, whereby there can be some responsible and

[ Page 1375 ]

systematic way of analysing the various needs for raising rents by the various establishments, rather than just having a fixed rise that doesn't reflect the circumstances of that particular establishment, doesn't take into account the age of the building or the economic situation or the capital costs of operation, et cetera. So I think, especially in my riding, that many of the people are living in situations where they can't meet a 10.6 per cent automatic increase annually. I realize that that's a problem, with the cost of living and the operating costs the various establishments have. But I think we'd find many of them who could operate at perhaps 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 per cent. There is no opportunity for this factor to be considered because most operators will naturally opt for the highest possible markup.

I hope that when you rise, Mr. Attorney-General, you will indicate to the House your plan to deal with this problem, as the previous administration had intended to do. I think we were hoping to reduce the increase to 8 per cent per annum, and then lower that until we got down to a workable figure, or some system whereby we could adjudicate or discuss with representatives from the community — say a person from the Consumer Services department, perhaps an economist, maybe someone from the tenant side of it and management — to realistically look at what a rise should be. You know, it would be something similar to a review board that would look realistically at the local situation, because they do vary from district to district and from community to community. I don't think that a flat fee, a flat rise, is fair in all cases. Perhaps in some cases it's not fair enough.

While we're on the point of living, of residential accommodation, I think also another one is the establishment that operates under licence. This has been one of legal debate for quite a while: what is a residential kind of place between the management and the tenant, and what is a licensed place that operates for the benefit of transients primarily. But what I think has happened is that because of circumstances, many hotels are finding that they rely heavily on the residential type client rather than those people who are just passing through. They do, in fact, have contracts, although perhaps not in legalistic terms, but they do, in fact, have clients who live the year around in those rooming houses, and those less than residential facilities that are being rented as residential facilities. I think that's a problem.

I am sure that we could even find a hotel like The Empress. Certainly it is not a residential hotel, but it probably has clients, from time to time, who may be living there six months or a year. I believe the former Minister of Human Resources — I think it was called Social Improvement at the time — retained a suite year-round. I believe he has one in the Vancouver hotel, if I am not misinformed. But that type of thing happens.

If a hotel is licensed to have a fast turnover, then that's fine. But if they are going to get a licence to operate in that way and then turn around and operate as a residential facility, then I think they should be obligated to be responsible under the landlord and tenant regulations, especially in order to protect those people who have no other recourse but to use those facilities. So the legalistic argument that we can't protect them under the Landlord and Tenant Act, because of the licence category for that particular facility, isn't really valid.

If we were to turn them over, in fact, many of those people wouldn't have a place to stay. So they are living...and the evidence is there. If you check with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association and other community groups, tenants' organizations, they will give you the evidence, as I am sure you had in the past. Certainly, being a Vancouver MLA yourself, I am sure you are familiar with that problem, although it does exist in other parts of the province.

So I am hoping, Mr. Attorney-General, that before your estimates are complete you will give us some indication of your intentions respecting the licensee category as it relates to the tenant-landlord relationship and contracts, and the one on the rent freeze, which should be lessened — should be reduced from 10.6 to at least 8 per cent immediately and with a view to getting it down to a realistic figure, one to be dealt with, depending on the circumstances, by the various establishments.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

RAILWAY OPERATION CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Railway Operation Continuation Act.

Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. members certain observations relating to three matters which have recently, been before the House and which require some clarification. The matters which I would bring to the attention of the members involve three areas — namely, ministerial statements, points of order and points of privilege.

Dealing with ministerial statements, I would refer the hon. members to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, page 358:

[ Page 1376 ]

"Explanations are made in the House by ministers on behalf of the government regarding their domestic and foreign policy; stating the advice they have tendered to the sovereign regarding their retention of office or the dissolution of parliament; announcing the legislative proposals they intend to submit to parliament; or the course they intend to adopt in the transaction and arrangement of public business. These explanations are now usually elicited by arrangement in reply to a question. But the older practice under which they were volunteered spontaneously is also often followed. Prior notice to Mr. Speaker is necessary, but the leave of the House is not required. As no [regular] question is before the House, debate on such statements is irregular."

As I observed to the House on May 3, replies to ministerial statements have been permitted to the Leader of the Official Opposition, as well as to the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties. It is my view that in most cases a further comment by other hon. members is not permitted. I would further emphasize that the authority above quoted clearly states that prior notice of a ministerial statement should, whenever possible, be given to Mr. Speaker, but leave of the House to make a ministerial statement is not required.

Dealing with the second matter, points of order, it is my observation that there has been an increasing tendency among members to rise on "points of order" which, in fact, do not amount to correct points of order in accordance with our parliamentary rules. Sir Erskine May, in the same edition, quoted at page 467, notes that a Deputy Speaker in the House of Commons deprecated this practice and stated that in many instances interruptions in the guise of points of order constituted fraudulent points of order and should be stopped. The practice amounts, in essence, to a misuse of the forms of the House and, in my opinion, amounts to an obstruction of the business of the House, and may, in effect, amount to a contempt. In this regard I refer all hon. members to the same edition of May, above mentioned, at page 466.

In relation to the last matter, being matters of privilege, I would point out to all hon. members that matters of privilege are extremely limited by parliamentary law and have been fully described by a former Speaker of the House, reported in the 1972 Journals at pages 192 and 193. An examination of this decision by all hon. members will reveal that matters of privilege fall into three general categories, namely: privilege of freedom of speech; privilege of freedom from arrest or molestation; privilege of access to the Crown. Points of privilege as well as points of order have been subject to abuse from time to time, and in Dawson's 2nd edition of The Government of Canada, at page 399, the author points out that privileges of individual members are primarily designed to enable the member to attend his parliamentary duties without interference and to encourage members to speak and act freely without fear of undesirable consequences.

I refer the hon. members to a decision of the Speaker of this House quoted in the 1968 Journals at page 135, which decision, quoting Dawson, 2nd edition, states as follows:

"At best, the privilege in the Canadian House is little understood and little used. At worst it is looked on as being a convenient excuse to make any remark in the House which cannot be made in the normal course of business. There have always been matters raised on points of privilege which have, on examination, proved not to be privilege, and Speakers have tried unsuccessfully to prevent abuses of the rule."

Unlike the unsuccessful Speakers contemplated by Mr. Dawson's authority, the Speaker in this House will endeavour to be successful in preventing abuses of this rule.

In order that the business of the House may proceed in an orderly fashion, I would ask all members to carefully observe these well-established principles of parliamentary law and ask their cooperation in avoiding the abuses which have been occurring with regrettable frequency.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 1377 ]

APPENDIX

25 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Transport and Communications the following questions:

With reference to contracts let in March 1976 for construction on Site One of the Peace River Power Project —

1. Who were the companies bidding on this project and what was the amount of each bid?

2. What was the name of the successful bidder and the amount of the contract let?

The Hon. Jack Davis replied as follows:

"1. The tenderers on the Site One power plant and dam which was bid on the basis of an estimate of the target cost of the work, are:

"2. The successful bidder and estimated target cost are as shown in 1(b) ."