[ Page 2901 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Fire Marshal Act Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill M 208) Mr. Rogers.

Introduction and first reading –– 2901

Statement

Shortage of extended-care beds. Mr. Cocke –– 2902

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Okanagan Lake weed problem. Mr. Cocke –– 2903

Closure of Queen Charlotte Fisheries cannery. Mr. Lauk –– 2905

Presenting reports.

Report of the special committee to recommend the person to be appointed as auditor-general. Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2908

Mr. Stupich –– 2910

Mr. Gibson I I I –– 2910

Mr. Wallace –– 2910

Mr. Macdonald –– 2911

Division on the motion to appoint Erma Morrison to be auditor-general –– 2911

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

On vote 57.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2911

Mr. Macdonald –– 2913

Mr. Gibson –– 2913

Mr. Wallace –– 2914

Mr. Levi –– 2916

Mr. King –– 2917

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2917

Mr. Lloyd –– 2917

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2918

Mr. Lloyd –– 2919

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2919

Mr. Macdonald –– 2919

Mr. Gibson –– 2923

Mr. Levi –– 2924

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2927

Mr. Levi –– 2928

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2930

Mr. Wallace –– 2931

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2934

Mr. Lea –– 2935

Mr. Lauk –– 2937

Corrections Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 55) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2938

Presenting reports,

Annual report of British Columbia Petroleum Corp. Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2938

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, from time to time this House is favoured by having as its guests visiting leaders of national political parties who are on the national political scene. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure to introduce the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Joe Clark. Last week we had the Secretary of State, John Roberts.

Today I'm very pleased to introduce the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, André Fortin. Mr. Fortin was first elected in 1968 at the age of 24 in the Lotbiniere constituency. In November, 1976, he was elected leader of his party and today, at 33, he is the youngest of all the national leaders of the four political parties on the national scene.

I'm very pleased to welcome him here today and I hope all members of the House will join me in welcoming Mr. Fortin to B.C.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, we're very pleased to see Mr. Fortin here and I want to introduce another important person in the gallery, the wife of the leader of the official opposition, Mrs. Shirley Barrett.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): M. l'Orateur, nous voulons dire bienvenu ~ M. Fortin, et nous lui souhaitons une bonne visite en Colombie Britannique. Nous ne sommes pas tous Creditistes ici, mais nous sommes tous amis de la province de Quebec.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): In the galleries today we have a member of the elected council from the Northwest Territories. He's come a great distance to see the Legislature and to visit us in Victoria here. Mr. Thomas Butters is the member representing Inuvik in the Northwest Territories. People speak of some of us as being northern MLAs; I certainly think Mr. Thomas Buffers deserves that compliment. He met with Premier Bennett this morning and later with Mines minister Jim Chabot and he said he's enjoyed his visit very much. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Butters.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): One of the people responsible for my presence here in the Legislature is in the gallery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your father?

MR. LAUK: I'm sure he doesn't know that he is, Mr. Speaker, but he is my grade 10 social studies, Canadian history and government teacher, going back to 1953. I want to introduce the now retired Mr. Clyde Smith.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): There are a number of people in the gallery today who are here in support of Motion 6 on the order paper. That, Mr. Speaker, as you know, is the motion dealing with the building of a Trident base at Bangor, Washington.

Among the group are Mary Travis, Maggie Pires, Dr. Ed Pires, Agnes Warren, Kay Beeching, Doran Doyle, Peter Shoepfer, Dianne Pearson, Valerie Lewis, Eleanor Kobley, Brother Terry McNamara, Mary Carder, Joy Stamford, Faith Lort, Jamie Reed and Richard Hagerson.

I would like the House to join me in welcoming these people and in giving them all the support we can in terms of their endeavours.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): In the gallery is a constituent of mine, Mrs. Lindmeyer. She is accompanied by Mr. Sterzinger from Calgary, and they have two guests with them from Wells, Austria. I would like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): In the gallery and in the precinct today, coming to the House later in the day, are members of the Kitsilano Boys Band. These are members who have provided a great deal of service and entertainment and have shared their talent with many citizens of British Columbia. I would like the House to welcome this great band.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): In the precinct are Mr. Bruce Yorke and a number of members of the British Columbia Tenants Association. I have just come from a very interesting and somewhat outspoken meeting with them, and I would; like the House to join mein making them welcome.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): In the legislative precinct later this afternoon will be representatives of seven regional districts, here to meet with the Premier at 4 o'clock to discuss with him the most controversial Islands Trust Amendment Act. We ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

FIRE MARSHAL ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Mr. Rogers, Bill M 208, Fire Marshal Act Amendment Act, 1977, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

[ Page 2902 ]

House after today.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an important statement.

Leave granted.

SHORTAGE OF

EXTENDED-CARE BEDS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Greater Vancouver Regional District has been starved for extended-care hospital beds. There was a need for 1,100 beds two years ago. To care for the needs of the area the New Democratic Party government authorized a number of units, among them the university Extended-Care Hospital.

A situation of administrative incompetence and bungling has come to my attention. The university extended-care facility was completed in January. Now on June 21 it is still standing empty. I have been informed today it will open on July 15 - another month.

This shows gross incompetence on the part of the government, Mr. Speaker. The inability to meet the needs of those that are ill is intolerable, and the inability of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to carry out his duty in this matter is unforgivable.

The reason for the delay, I am informed, is a fight between the Education ministry and the Ministry of Health on the division of operating costs. The people in this province have financed a 300-bed facility at UBC. The least they could have expected would be for this government to use the facility immediately it is complete. Instead the two ministers have been embroiled in a conflict which has dearly cost those chronically ill people it was to serve.

We demand, Mr. Speaker, that the government move now to correct this situation. There should be no further delay and the government must see to it that future planning for health care precludes this sort of scandalous bungling reoccurring at the expense of the taxpayers and at the expense of the patients.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, during question period on several occasions you've drawn to the hon. opposition members' attention the fact that it might be helpful from time to time - at least a courtesy - to provide notice to various ministers that questions of them may be asked. Again - and this second part of the spring session is only a little over a week old - no fewer than seven ministers are away today, Mr. Speaker, and on no occasion have fewer than five not been away. In other words, at least five have been away on every single day and it has gone as high as nine.

It is absolutely impossible for the question period to work or for notice to be provided through courtesy or otherwise to these ministers in their absence. There are some ministers, like the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , who haven't shown their faces in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the hon. member is on a point of order, he should state it now.

MR. LAUK: I'm stating the point of order that it is impossible for the opposition to properly carry out its job in terms of question period when the ministers are absent during that period of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hiding!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, we can understand that after question period ministers have duties in and around the precincts, and particularly in their offices, but they should make every effort to be here during question period so that we can ask questions of them concerning important matters of state.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: There is no discussion and no debate on a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, surely Mr. Speaker is going to issue some admonition to the government on this question.

I've been waiting to ask the Minister of Economic Development a question now for two weeks. This is the second week he hasn't been here. Now what's going on?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I would think, Mr. Speaker, that you might give some suggestion to the government in this respect. Otherwise, we're making a mockery of parliament and the ministers are running away from their responsibility to answer questions and face up to their responsibilities;

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D. BARRETT (Vancouver East): We're not mad at you, Sam!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a good guy,

[ Page 2903 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Could I suggest to the hon. members that, first of all, the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was out of order? That is why his microphone was not activated. It will not be activated for any member, at any time, unless he or she gains the recognition of the Chair before they speak.

The point of order that was raised was a dubious point of order at best. It has been raised by the hon. member and it's not for the Speaker to lecture the members of the House respecting their attendance in the House. That is why I have allowed the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre a certain amount of latitude in stating a matter under a point of order which I could not see, in all charity to your point of view, sir, qualifies as a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Well, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is at least a question of privilege affecting the operations of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member has a question of privilege, he is well aware of the rules of the House as to how a question of privilege is handled.

MR. LAUK: A substantive motion, Mr. Speaker, is the usual way.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct.

MR. LAUK: But wouldn't it be more helpful if the Speaker would draw to the attention of the government the importance of their attendance in the House?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Oral questions.

OKANAGAN LAKE WEED PROBLEM

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Premier. The question is: did the Premier know that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) received a memo last December from the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) complaining that South Okanagan regional public health officer, Dr. David Clarke, was being too vocal in regard to the weed problem in Okanagan Lake and requesting that he be muzzled by the Health department?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, did the Premier realize that the minister instructed his officials to contact Dr. Clarke as a result of the Environment minister's request and that he subsequently sent a memo of reply reassuring the Minister of the Environment that Dr. Clarke "*41 continue to be either completely silent or very guarded about this"?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I was not part of any decision in discussing with any members of any department how they should conduct their position either in public or in private.

MR. COCKE: On a supplementary, in view of the importance of this matter and Dr. Clarke's revelation that it's the second time a Social Credit Minister of Health has ordered him to keep silent on a public problem, will the Premier insist that the minister table in the House all memos to and from his office regarding Dr. Clarke's warning and admit that the Minister of the Environment's plan to spray 2, 4-D into Okanagan Lake constitutes a danger to public health?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly discuss the statements attributed to Dr. Clarke with the minister to see if in fact that was the case and whether the Minister of Health has sent any instructions not to speak but on conduct of government representatives in the public service. I'll certainly hold that discussion with the Minister of Health. I'm certain that the Minister of Health will be prepared to make a report to the House.

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary to the Premier. I want to thank the Premier for his statement. The further supplementary is: did Dr. Clarke inform the Premier of the minister's letter?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. I might point out to the House that Dr. Clarke was invited to a meeting in the Premier's office last year in which officials from the federal government and others were invited -other scientists connected with the provincial government from many departments - at my request to discuss proposals that were being made in conjunction with the Okanagan basin board and some of the controversies surrounding the area to try to set up a mechanism of co-ordinated research so that all areas would be kept informed, including the public health officer in the constituency. At that time such a meeting did take place and such a mechanism was set up so that all parts could be part of any research or any reports that would be undertaken so that the local citizens and the department could make a decision.

MR. BARRETT: Just to be clear, Mr. Premier, as I

[ Page 2904 ]

understand it you are telling the House that neither the minister nor Dr. Clarke informed you of the existence of this letter.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I haven't spoken to Dr. Clarke since that meeting. At that time he made no such mention of any instruction as to how he should conduct himself as the public health officer i n the South Okanagan area. I have known Dr. Clarke personally for very many years. He holds a very unique spot in the Okanagan as a very controversial, outspoken medical health officer, which he has been for very many years.

MR. GIBSON: Does the Premier support the introduction of the chemical 2, 4-D into the waters of Lake Okanagan?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of policy.

MR. GIBSON: As a supplementary to clarify that, does the Premier support it - yes or no? Is that his policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano would know full well that this question is out of order.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're asking my opinion on official reports, but I'd be very pleased to bring my opinion to the House because many of us have waited until all the information is in before making a public statement. Along with my next-door neighbour, who is a strong member of SPEC who had originally opposed the controlled experimental use of 2, 4-D, I had reservations earlier. Along with him I have changed my mind.

The programme, as devised by the research scientists for the controlled use.... I am confident that the research they have done and the advice they have given to the public is correct. Along with my neighbour, who has now publicly written as a member of SPEC that he has changed his mind because he trusts the integrity of these men, I now believe that the controlled experimental use being advocated would be in the best interests of the total attack to contain the milfoil in Okanagan Lake.

MR. GIBSON: So the answer is yes.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question following up on the Premier's answer to the Leader of the Opposition. I spoke to Dr. Clarke on the phone just half an hour ago and he made it plain that he contacted the Premier's office before he decided to break his so-called silence and that in fact he received permission through the Premier's office to attend a meeting in Okanagan Falls and speak out publicly on the issue.

In light of the Premier's former answer, could I clarify. if. the Premier was or was not aware of the pre-existing conditions, whether they be by memo or telephone call, to the effect that Dr. Clarke for some six months had been told to be quiet?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. I'll tell the member, exactly what happened, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Clarke phoned my office and a memo came in and said: "Dr. Clarke wants to know if he can attend a meeting." I said: "I've never, ever been concerned about Dr. Clarke attending meetings or speaking out, and it's strange he should ask my permission now. He's free to conduct himself as he always has, undertaking responsibility for his own conduct. He doesn't need my permission and, as such, he's free to go ahead."

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I may not have heard correctly, but I thought that the Premier made the statement that subsequent to the meeting with federal officials in his office some months ago, he'd had no contact with Dr. Clarke whatever. I now. .. .

HON. MR. BENNETT: All I said was I hadn't spoken to him.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the Premier's now saying that he never - himself - spoke to Dr. Clarke. But can I confirm the fact that. . . .

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to add a supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker; to ask further, in fact ....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't be silly.

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

MR. WALLACE: I want to ask the Premier: in view of the fact that various other civil servants in other departments, who were very vocal when the briefs were first heard in October and November but who have, also become strangely silent in recent months, I want to ask the Premier if he is aware of any other minister in his cabinet who has requested that any other biologist or otherwise desist from making public statements on this controversial issue?

[ Page 2905 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, first of all I'd like to point out to the member that what I said earlier when I volunteered information to the House was that I had called Dr. Clarke with another group to discuss ways in which we could have the type of communication in doing the research on containing the milfoil in Okanagan Lake; and what I said is that since that time I've had no further discussions with Dr. Clarke and that's entirely correct.

Requests that come to my office for people to speak out is no contact other than something in which there was no instructions from me as to whether Dr. Clarke could speak or not speak. I know Dr. Clarke perhaps better than any member of this House and I know that he's not someone to contain himself on instructions from anyone. If he did contain himself for six months, it would be the first time in his life he'd ever done so. (Laughter.)

He's a friend of mine and controversial enough.... I know him well enough to know that I can disagree with him from time to time and we're still friends. When I say that I was surprised when someone had asked whether he needed my permission, it was treated in just that way - he's never asked for it before, he's never needed it before and he doesn't need it now.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has told the House that he was not aware of a letter from the minister to Dr. Clarke, nor did Dr. Clarke tell hi~.-i of such a letter. The Premier then explained to the House that he was at a loss as to why Dr. Clarke would ask his permission. I ask the Premier this question: will he now reprimand this minister or any other minister who orders a public servant to be silent on any issue?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I've said exactly what I'll do; I'll talk to the minister. What we have is a report in the newspaper, with the opposition immediately leaping to the political attack and arriving at a conclusion. I have no knowledge of what the Leader of the Opposition calls a letter; the original question was that it was a memo. Now in their question period they haven't even decided what it was that the minister sent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite willing to speak to the minister, as I said, and I'm sure the minister will make a report to the House.

CLOSURE OF QUEEN

CHARLOTTE FISHERIES CANNERY

MR. LAUK: This question is to the hon. Premier with reference to yesterday's announcement that some 40 permanent and up to 600 seasonal jobs will be lost by the closure of the Queen Charlotte Fisheries cannery operations in Richmond. Will the Premier, inform the House what steps he is taking to enable this company to remain in operation this summer in order to save those jobs?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , who is also the MLA for Richmond, has met with people involved and with myself. Instructions were given to the Economic Development ministry through their own offices and that of the B.C. Development Corporation to immediately investigate the closure, the economics of the plant, the potential job loss and to bring a report to government by tomorrow. We anticipate that this report will be in the hands of the department tomorrow on instructions from the government.

MR. LAUK: I understand the parent company, Delta Food Processors, contacted the cabinet or some members of the cabinet some months ago to seek assistance in obtaining the necessary advance financing - that is, seed money - so that it can continue operation. Now on a last-ditch thing you're asking for a report. Has the Premier agreed to help the company with a direct loan, a government guarantee, a bank loan or any other form of financial assistance? You don't need a report. They're going to lay off 40 permanents and they're not going to hire 600 seasonal people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the government has asked for a report because the government and this Department of Economic Development, unlike the department when you were the minister, operates on facts.

MR. LAUK: You've had four months!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any application to the cabinet for money.

MR. LAUK: Well, find out where your minister is and ask him.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No application has been brought before the cabinet, and the member for Vancouver Centre is entirely incorrect again when he makes that as a statement to this House.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the information I have is from the vice-president of Delta Foods - perhaps you

[ Page 2906 ]

could take that up with him. But approaches were made to one of the ministers, at least, of your cabinet....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now you say "to one of the ministers;" a minute ago you said "the cabinet." You're always wrong!

MR. LAUK: I said "to the cabinet."

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're always wrong! Be truthful!

MR. LAUK: Listen, you've had four months to act on this and now as a last-ditch attempt, you're putting up a phony smokescreen.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know how to be truthful!

MR. LAUK: There are 600 jobs going down the tube and last week there was ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: .. . this Quadra Steel Company going down the tube and the week before that it was something else going down the tube.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, could I just draw your attention back to the fact that it is a question period and that questions and answers are permitted, but not speeches on whatever a person's favourite topic of the moment may be.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to point out, while you're giving advice to the House, that time and time again that member gets up and makes statements that are not correct, as if they were facts. They are not questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm on a point of order!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not on any point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. members please resume their seats? Could I just suggest that the question period is for the purposes of stating questions and is an opportunity for the ministers to answer the questions or take them as notice. It's been my observation that in recent days the questioner has certainly exceeded the limits that they should in presenting and posing a question; this also happens when answers are given which certainly cover far more territory than the question that was posed originally. It's the position of the Speaker to try and deal even-handedly with all members of the House in this matter, and that's what I intend to do, hon. members.

So if at times you're cut off or not recognized -and it's going to happen on occasions to all members of this House - it's because the Speaker feels that there is a prejudice running against the whole operation of a question period and what it is supposed to mean in a Legislative Assembly.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The question period was terminated by the bell.

HON. MR. BENNETT: A point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: I'll recognize the Premier on a point of order.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet on a point of order....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , I'm prepared to recognize you on your point of order following the recognition of the Premier.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: On what I am told, hon. member,

[ Page 2907 ]

is a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I was on a point of order before the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) threw his usual temper tantrum, volume taking the place of content.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Your point of order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The point I was making, Mr. Speaker, was just this: I would certainly hope that you could show greater discipline to the House in question period, on both sides, because it has come to my attention that many questions, particularly from some certain members, have abused the question period by making statements which are incorrect as part of a question. This leaves a false impression on the floor of this House, and it certainly doesn't help the true intent of question period, which is to get information not just for this House but for the people of British Columbia, whom we are all here to serve.

MR. SPEAKER: I indicated prior to recognizing and listening to the point of order by the hon. Premier that if the hon. member for Prince Rupert had a point of order, I would recognize him next.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this: the Premier rose in his place, did not say he was on a point of order, or anything else. He began to speak and you didn't make any attempt to stop him. I wonder why.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think if you....

MR. LEA: And on every point of order you tell us what we're doing wrong, but you never tell them anything. I'd like to know what you're up to, Mr. Speaker. That's my point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is that the Speaker is trying to maintain an even-handed treatment of all members of the House, hon. member.

You know, hon. member, an abuse of that kind or suggestion of that type is not only an abuse of the position of Speaker, which is one of those institutions of our particular type of Legislative Assembly, but it's also an abuse of the members of the House.

I think, in fairness to all of the members of the House, perhaps something that was said by yourself just now in heat should be withdrawn in that. . . .

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it was not said in heat; it appears to me that that's the way it is. Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that is why I opposed the position in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is as responsible as any other member for his conduct in this House. That's why I made the suggestion that I did, hon. member.

MR. LEA: ... for any other member of this House to be the recipient of my remarks, and if they felt they were, then I do withdraw that part.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me make it abundantly clear to the hon. member: an attack on the Speaker is an attack on the House, and every member of the House. I ask you to withdraw that attack.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, because you have put it exactly that way I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker has stated, during the exchange between I and the hon. Premier....

HON. MR. MAIR: "Between me and the hon. Premier."

MR. LEA: But you weren't even in on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've recognized the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Here we have these city-slicker lawyers. . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. LAUK: I'm just trying to do my best in this House, Mr. Speaker . . .

MR. SPEAKER: And I'm trying to preserve order so you can do that.

MR. LAUK: ... to represent the ordinary working families of my constituency.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. members please allow the first member for Vancouver Centre to present his question of privilege?

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should explain, first of all, that the unfortunate exchange between the Premier and myself I would say, to put it charitably, arose out of a misunderstanding. But the question itself was clear and I think the facts speak

[ Page 2908 ]

for themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state your question of privilege?

MR. LAUK: The question of privilege is this. Mr. Speaker, in speaking, I think, directly to me, because you were looking at me when you made these words, you said: "You must understand, when you get cut off or you don't get recognized, that I feel there is a prejudice flowing through question period." That may be a threat to my privileges as a member and I hope that you would clarify that right now, if you would. Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Take a look at the Blues, hon. member, when they are available, and see if in fact I in any way prejudiced the member's rights.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue the point of privilege, the implication that I draw from that, without further clarification, is that you have or will make a decision not to recognize me when I stand in question period.

MR. SPEAKER: That was an improper assumption, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Presenting reports.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the special committee appointed to recommend the person to be appointed as auditor-general, as provided under section 2 of the Auditor General Act. I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved,

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Report to the legislature from the special committee of the Legislative Assembly to select an auditor-general for the province of British Columbia:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the report of the special committee of the Legislative Assembly setting out our recommendation to the assembly for the selection of an auditor-general.

Recruitment:

The special committee was formed pursuant to section 2 (2) of the Auditor General Act, 1976. A copy of the Act is given as Appendix A to this report.

The committee held its first meeting on August 3,1976, to plan and agree upon the requirements for the position of the auditor-general and the approach to be used in attracting qualified applicants. The committee resolved to place an advertisement in major newspapers across Canada. A copy of this advertisement is given as Appendix B to this report. In addition the Institute of Chartered Accounts of British Columbia was alerted to our advertisement and asked to encourage suitable members of that institute to apply.

As a result of these efforts we received a total of 55 applicants for the position of auditor-general. Candidates responded from every province in Canada.

Preliminary screening:

The committee carried out a preliminary screening of the 55 applicants on the basis of their written presentations. As a result of our preliminary screening, the list of candidates was reduced to 22, which we then processed for further evaluation.

The committee decided at this point to consider the services of a consulting firm to carry out interviews and other investigations of the 22 remaining candidates. The management consulting firm of Stevenson and Kellogg Ltd. was selected. Accordingly, members of the committee met with the vice-president of that firm in the Stevenson and Kellogg Vancouver office on December 16,1976. We outlined our needs and asked for a written submission of their programme for evaluation and applicable budget. A detailed written proposal of Stevenson and Kellogg Ltd., was considered by the committee and accepted at a meeting on January 12,1977.

The consultants were required to interview each of the candidates in depth and check carefully each candidate's credentials and references. They were also required to seek advice from the federal and several provincial auditors-general on the most desirable characteristics of the person required for this post. Operating from their offices across Canada, Stevenson and Kellogg carried out the required evaluation and investigations and presented a written report in late February of 1977. This report contained the results of the evaluations for each of the 22 candidates, together with special mention of five whom the consultants considered most promising as finalists.

The committee reviewed the written evaluation of the 22 candidates prepared by the consultants and then met with representatives from Stevenson and Kellogg Ltd. to discuss the evaluations in detail. It was unanimously agreed that all five candidates suggested by the consultants should be interviewed. Accordingly your committee met with three of the five candidates on April 6,1977, and the other two on April 8,1977. The committee was most impressed with the calibre and background of the five finalists.

After inter-viewing the five finalists, the committee members carefully reviewed and discussed the qualifications of each finalist, as well as having , further discussions with the consultants. It was the committee's unanimous decision to select the following candidate as our recommendation to the Legislative Assembly: Mrs. Erma P. Morrison, CA,

[ Page 2909 ]

Post Office Box 758, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Mrs. Morrison is a chartered accountant and a member of the Institute of Chartered Accounts of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. She obtained her qualifications in 1948. She has attended a number of professional development and management courses in the interim. She is also a certified internal auditor. Active in the affairs of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Mrs. Morrison has served as president of both the Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick institutes and has served on a number of committees. She has been on the board of directors of the Atlantic Provinces Association of Chartered Accountants. Nationally, she was a member of the council of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants for two terms and active on a number of national committees.

Mrs. Morrison is currently deputy auditor-general and appointee as auditor-general for the province of New Brunswick. She joined the provincial public service in 1965 as an auditor and assumed her present position in 1975. As deputy auditor-general she is responsible for the administration of the office, recruiting, staffing and training, improving and co-ordinating programmes, and for the direct and extensive participation in the preparation and editing of the auditor-general's annual report to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. Prior to joining the public service she had her own practice for approximately 10 years in Moncton, New Brunswick.

In announcing our unanimous recommendation to the Legislative Assembly, I wish to place on record the splendid degree of interest and co-operative spirit which all members of the committee displayed in bringing our task to a successful conclusion. I would also want to acknowledge the special efforts of Mr. Elwood Veitch, MLA, Burnaby-Willingdon, who acted as secretary of the committee. His assistance in co-ordinating the meetings and communicating with the candidates was most appreciate&,

Mr. Speaker, your committee unanimously recommends to the Legislative Assembly that the name of Mrs. Erma P. Morrison be recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor for the position as audit or-general, to exercise the powers and perform her duties as provided by the Auditor General Act.

Special Committee of the Legislative
Assembly to Select an Auditor-Genera
for the Province of British Columbia

Hon. James J. Hewitt
Chairman

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted. In moving the adoption of that report I would like to make a few remarks, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make some comments in regard to this report that has been filed today. The fact is that this report is a culmination of the efforts that were set out back in the throne speech of March, 1976, when it stated that the members of this assembly would be asked to consider legislation to establish, for the first time, an auditor-general in the province of British Columbia, that auditor-general to act as an independent watchdog over the finances of our province.

On May 27,1976, Mr. Speaker, Bill 45, the Auditor General Act, was introduced and that Act received royal assent on June 9,1976. Section 2 (2) of that Act stated: "The Legislative Assembly shall not recommend a person to be appointed as auditor-general unless a special committee of the Legislative Assembly unanimously recommended to the Legislative Assembly that the person be appointed." Mr. Speaker, that committee was formed and it was an all-party committee, which is an important point. Considering the political philosophies of the parties in this House, the fact that it had to be an all-party committee and a unanimous recommendation was a difficult task.

Mr. Speaker, the appointment of an auditor-general will be a first for British Columbia. It fulfils an election promise that was made by the Social Credit Party when it campaigned in 1975. There was a commitment to the people of this province, Mr. Speaker, and this commitment now has been fulfilled. The auditor-general will report to the people of this province as to the administration of the taxpayers' dollars and the financial stability of the province. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the auditor-general will advise the people of this province as to whether or not they have received value for their dollars. In effect, a major part of the audit or-general's role will be to conduct a value audit to ensure that government programmes are being administered efficiently and effectively.

The committee, in dealing with its terms of reference laid out in the Act, stressed to all candidates, and to the consultants we engaged, the factor of independence of the audit or-general. The person who was to be selected had to be of calibre and character to be able to speak out, when necessary, as to the shortfalls or inefficiencies of government programmes. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Act stated that the auditor-general would be appointed for a six-year term and not just the term of the government, which further indicates the independence of the position.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of that committee, I can assure you the committee feels very confident that Mrs. Morrison's qualifications and previous experience as deputy auditor-general for the province of New Brunswick will be of great assistance in setting up the administration, staff and programmes

[ Page 2910 ]

of the office of the first auditor-general of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like again to say that this was a special all-party committee of the Legislature. This committee worked very well. I would like to acknowledge the excellent co-operation and interest of all the members of the committee. It was, Mr. Speaker, truly a team effort on the part of the committee members. We worked together to achieve the common goal, which was to ensure the appointment of a qualified and capable auditor-general for the province of British Columbia. To the members of the committee, Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, I would like to say that they made my job as chairman a most enjoyable and pleasant task and I would like to extend to them my thanks.

Mr. Speaker, I would move, in accordance with the report just adopted by the House a few moments ago. . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. MACDONALD: What is this - a one-party state?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have a motion that the rules be suspended and the report adopted, at which time I allowed the hon. Minister of Agriculture to make his statement. I'm now prepared to recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to associate myself with the statement made by the chairman of the committee. I think there are times, perhaps, when the public generally - perhaps those who observe us in the chamber at different times, and those who hear or read about our conduct or misconduct at different times - may question the ability of members of the House to work together.

I think the experience of the committee that met to select an auditor-general shows that when the occasion demands, and when the opportunity is there, the members can, indeed, work very well together to achieve something on behalf of the public of the province. The committee did work very well together. The committee had to be unanimous. There were occasions when different committee members felt that a particular candidate, for whatever reason, was not worthy of further consideration by the committee. The members were not called upon, necessarily, to explain why they thought that particular person shouldn't be considered. The principle of unanimity was accepted. The members did, after deliberation, decide on a candidate, and decided on that candidate unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, I think the work of that committee, and the success of that committee in working together, should be some reassurance to the public that their representatives in this House do, indeed, on most occasions, work in the interest of the people generally.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, as long as the Minister of Agriculture observes that this was the fulfilment of an election pledge on behalf of the Social Credit Party, I feel impelled to say to him that it was also the fulfilment of an election pledge on the part of the Liberal Party. It's one of the very few election pledges we've been able to carry out.

Mr. Speaker, the auditor-general that British Columbia, I trust, will shortly have as a result of the recommendation of this House, is an excellent person and will, I think, do a superb job. There were many excellent candidates and in the view of the committee, Mrs. Morrison stood above the others.

Secondly, I would like to say a short word about the process by which the candidate was chosen. The committee worked very well, as other hon. members have described. It showed clearly, in my view, that the government can afford to share power with the Legislature, particularly through the committee structure, in a way that does not detract too much from the necessary prerogatives of the executive branch and yet does provide for better governance of this province. I hope that that lesson will not be lost on those opposite.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, as a member of that committee, I want to add my optimistic comments that not only an exciting and progressive step for the system of government in British Columbia, but I agree with the Liberal leader that we've found a very worthy person to assume the role for the first time. I couldn't also help but stress the pleasure I took in serving on that committee, above and beyond any other that I've had the pleasure to serve on, simply because it did its work on a non-partisan basis. I feel, as the Liberal leader does, that it surely sets some example for at least the hope that some of the other all-party committees of the Legislature could perhaps modify or soften their all too often partisan stand when the Political ramifications damage the potential for that committee to bring out constructive and progressive proposals.

I think also - and I make this as a personal comment - that the Minister of Agriculture did an absolutely excellent job as chairman of the committee by simply initiating and sustaining the non-partisan atmosphere around the table. So in every respect, I look back on the work of that committee with a great deal of pleasure, and even more than pleasure - with some, albeit small, measure of hope that committee work within this Legislature might be on the up and up.

[ Page 2911 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, although I was not a member of the committee, I'd like to say one or two very short words. The functions of this very estimable person who has been appointed - and I applaud the appointment - are, of course, to oversee the public expenditure of money and to make sure there is financial probity and that what we vote in the Legislature is properly directed for the purpose for which the Legislature voted. We've had some bad examples of that not happening recently, such as the allowance to Mr. Broadbent of the BCR, which was paid out of a vote that had nothing to do with that. Well, that's part of the function.

The other part of the function, I would hope, is to constantly examine public programmes to make sure that the taxpayer is getting an efficient use of his dollar. In many of the states of the United States, they now have sunset laws - and they're being actively debated - where all the agencies of government, Crown corporations and so forth, after a six-year period, are subject to review and examination to make sure that there isn't waste of the taxpayer's money and that the programme is still efficient and effective. You know, public waste and burgeoning bureaucracy are two of the potential diseases of democratic government and they are something that has to be constantly watched and checked, under this or any other government.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): What happened under yours?

MR. MACDONALD: We always watched that and everybody should watch that. That is one of the functions, in the absence of sunset laws in this province, which the auditor-general must take very seriously. I don't think I need to say anything more about that except that we were conscious of the danger of burgeoning bureaucracy; that government should be conscious of the same thing and this is certainly part of the role of the auditor-general as I see it.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm glad we got it right, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, in accordance with the report just adopted by the House, that this House recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of Mrs. Erma Morrison as an officer of the Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the auditor-general, pursuant to the Auditor General Act, Statutes of British Columbia, 1976, Chapter 3. I have the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, since this is a unique situation asking for unanimous support of .the House, would it be important to have a recorded vote?

MR. MACDONALD: It's unanimous.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a unanimous report of a committee of the House.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'll call a division, just to be on the safe side.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY

OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 57: minister's office, $104,720 - continued.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I see that the exodus is not complete in here, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to make a few remarks apropos of some of the questions that were raised close to the witching hour yesterday. I'd much like the House to have an expression of my views as to how I see this country.

In my view, Mr. Chairman, national unity should not be a national dream but a national reality. We are a young country. We have a relatively small population, comprising many mixes. Indeed, we are endowed with fabulous resources and huge energy supplies. We've got an enormous capacity to grow food. We very richly enjoy the benefits of a highly advanced technology. Our future, I'd say, both qualitatively and quantitatively is almost unlimited.

Putting it simply, there's far more vitality and far more potential in Canada than I think we ever tend to appreciate as Canadians. Often I think Canadians are too self-critical, too reluctant to take a chance, which perhaps could be one of our greatest drawbacks for a national identity. But our futures, Mr. Chairman, in taking those chances - but as a whole, as a nation and undivided, and all in the best of all of our national interest.

I'd say that that is the great argument for unity. United, the horizons of this country really are

[ Page 2912 ]

unlimited, certainly with a flexibility of difference and a flexibility of dissimilarity. That's very healthy. It provides interest. It keeps the country on its toes and it keeps it trying. That in itself can make our country even stronger.

But at the present time, Mr. Chairman, we're facing - if not in fact in the very midst - an era of very great constitutional change. I think now is the time for us to take stock of our federal interests and our provincial interests and each of the values and move ahead.

I'd say, Mr. Chairman, that surely the unilateral establishment of another separate country, linguistically and economically isolated from the rest of North America, would be the ultimate folly -folly from the point of view of Canada, folly from the point of view of all of Quebec, folly from the point of view of all of the provinces in this country, and folly from the point of view of by far the majority of all Canadians.

Premier Levesque, Mr. Chairman, never put the option of slicing Quebec out of Confederation to Quebeckers or to Canadians when he ran for election. So I'd like to say to him, and make it clear, that which he proposes - a single, isolated country right here in North America ... and I'd like to have him put that question to his people now and get on with his referendum.

Mr. Chairman, if my remarks offended Mr. Levesque and his separatists, I'd like to say to him and I'd like to say to them that his committed course of action offends the whole of this country. What B.C. wants to do is hold the country together and not split it. If the opposition may wish to interpret my remarks as unfavourable and offending to anyone else, I regret that because that was not and never was my intention. In no way do I wish them to be construed as such. I'd say, Mr. Chairman, that if any olive branches or regrets are in order on that score, I make mountains of them and without qualification.

But, Mr. Chairman, I made my points to illustrate that in my personal view Mr. Levesque has the immediate responsibility and duty to get along with his question to Quebeckers right now and not leave the spectre of separation hanging over their heads or hanging over the heads of this country any longer. I think he's practising a daily disservice to everyone in Canada until he does that.

The right to determine our destiny is a right that each and every Canadian, regardless of language or region or culture, shares. But the destiny of each Canadian is not something that can be viewed in single isolation. I'd say the last hundred years have inextricably tied that to the destiny of each and every other citizen of this great nation.

I'd say surely, Mr. Chairman, it is correct to say that Canadians will be prepared to contribute to any region of this country as part of our partnership in Confederation, but also reserve the right to reassess that position should the basic premise of that partnership become challenged.

Equalization measures are not just questions of dollars and cents; they are not just issues that build roads or schools or hospitals; they are our affirmation as provinces - indeed our reaffirmation as Canadians that the nation in which we live and the nation in which we are regional partners is worth making contributions toward and is worth working for.

But that mechanism, I think, Mr. Chairman, needs an overhaul too. And dealing with equalization payments, I much subscribe to the suggestion of the Premier of this province when he said: "Get those dollars out of political direction and out of bureaucratic erosion and get them directly into the hands of the people of the provinces by the route of negative income tax."

It is in this context - the context of one Canadian trying to address the issue of Confederation - that I raised the question of national unity. I did so, Mr. Chairman, not to be uncomplimentary to a great region of this great land, but I did so to put the question, as I see it, on the table. For we, the people of British Columbia, contribute to Canada as part of our national destiny, as do all of the provinces in this country. But we're supposed to do it, Mr. Chairman, as partners in a land in which each region makes its contribution to the whole of the country in a variety of ways. But if regions begin to say that they wish to make no contribution to the nation - to opt out of the nation - and they take the route of only looking inward to address problems and to find solutions, then I would say that is not the kind of a Canada which we work for, wish for, or know.

Yesterday I was also asked some specific questions dealing with a trial in Victoria. I understand that the difficulty arose, by virtue of the appointment by a JP of a court worker of the job of a bail supervisor. It seems that there were inadequate responses and I think this issue comes back to the question of training and to the question of performance. It was a goof.

The hon. member for Vancouver East talked about the question of Pinkerton's and my colleague, the Minister of Forests. I believe you asked me if I had discussion with him about that. I did not, sir. I would think that the decision that was made by him was based on the protection of property. Of course, we have ' a number of private agencies, as you know, protecting property.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's public property.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, it was property.

Then you asked the question about the private police force. As I think the hon. member knows without asking the question, there is a substantial

[ Page 2913 ]

task force report available, but the final report is not yet in my hands; as far as I know it is not yet complete. The task force is available in the offices of the Police Commission for anyone to look at at any time.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I certainly admire the straightforward way in which the Attorney-General has dodged the question.

He made a speech about the need to overhaul equalization in Canada which has merit to it. But the specific question was whether you would retract the words which are on the record and which are very destructive so far as the unity of Canada is concerned.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There you go in interpretation again.

MR. MACDONALD: No, the words were very specific and they can be easily withdrawn. The words were that "equalization payments should be held up until Rene Levesque does this or that in terms of his referendum." That's the part that was somehow missing in the statement of the Attorney- General, although a lot of the splendid things mentioned cannot be objected to. It is those words which are counter-productive to everything the Attorney-General was saying. He says: "Let Canada not split up." But if you put it in the hands of the separatists of Canada, that kind of statement coming from the Attorney-General of British Columbia armed him in his struggle to break Quebec away from the Dominion of Canada. So what we require in this House is a simple retraction of the words - a simple statement.

Having looked into the matter, I do not agree that equalization payments which, after all, are now owing by law - should be withheld from the province of Quebec or from any province until they take this or that political action or until they behave themselves, as the Attorney-General sees it. That's a very dangerous suggestion to come from the chief law officer of the province of British Columbia. There's no question whatsoever that we will not hear the end of it as a result of the Attorney-General's statement today because the words are still there. He says: "I had good intentions." Okay. But those words are still there; they have not been retracted. That is what we are asking for in this House, a retraction.

While I have several other important areas to take up before the end of the month under these estimates - and particularly the minister's vote - this issue is not a little one and I think the House should dispose of it at this time. I would hope the Attorney-General will retract his statement. Probably the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) who has made a real contribution in the debate on national unity and who, as a former colleague of the Attorney-General, feels keenly that this is a destructive formation of words So far as national unity is concerned, wants to say something too.

We're asking for a simple retraction so those words will not be on the record as we enter the national debate which will either see this country held together in unity or split into parts which, one by one, will fall into the arms of the United States' economy. It's as simple as that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, when I heard through the media yesterday that the minister had said he was planning a statement on this issue for today, I wag very hopeful as to what we might hear when the estimates commenced this afternoon, but what he has said hasn't advanced things very much. To go back in time, the minister said something that was very offensive to Quebeckers - not so much to the government of the province of Quebec. I suspect they rejoiced when they heard that particular language.

MR. MACDONALD: He handed them a weapon.

MR. GIBSON: It's just another weapon for them to use in their fight to convince Quebeckers that the rest of the country doesn't understand them, so the Attorney-General can't really bring that to the House and say that if it's a question of offending the government of Quebec.... He didn't offend the government; I'm sure they were delighted.

Then he said: "Well, if it offends anybody else, I'll hold out an olive branch." That's not good enough, Mr. Chairman. Let me try to put it in terms that he will understand with respect to this chamber. Suppose the minister had said something unparliamentary in this chamber. Suppose he had accused someone else, for example, of lying or doing something unparliamentary. You, as Chairman, sir, would not think it acceptable if the minister said: "However, I hold out an olive branch." You would insist - and properly insist - on a withdrawal of the offending words. The minister has not done that. I have to tell him that the people of Quebec aren't going to be very impressed with an olive branch.

There remains on the record his statement of political blackmail of the people of Quebec in saying that the prosperous parts of Canada should withhold funds that are legally due and payable to the people of Quebec as a result of proper, competent federal legislation until Quebec does something that would suit the interests of the Attorney- General. That's what his statement says. It's clear and it's on the record. Olive branches don't help that. A retraction is required for that.

The Attorney-General went on to some musings about the nature of the equalization process in Canada that, I think, reveals a good deal of naiveté

[ Page 2914 ]

about the way this country operates. Equalization payments as they are presently constituted, go to provincial governments in the poorer parts of our country for the purpose of funding basic social services; for the purpose, in effect, of saying that there is a level of basic social services, be it education, or human resources, or whatever it may be, that because you are a Canadian you are entitled to, even if you live in a poor part of this country.

Now if the Attorney-General, as he said in clear language today, would withdraw that kind of equalization support from social services and instead direct those funds into a kind of negative income tax, let me tell you exactly what he would do. He would thereby give incentive to productive industry not to locate in those areas, because taxes would have to be raised enormously to cover the loss of the equalization, and he would; at the same time, give incentive for people to remain in those areas in an unproductive way because of what he was doing with the negative income tax. If that isn't a double play in favour of unproductivity - when the Attorney-General is forever reminding the House that productivity is what he is for - then I don't think I've ever heard it.

It's a completely naive, shallow examination of the economic fabric of our country, but I suppose we should not be surprised about that because his earlier statements represent a shallow understanding of the political fabric of our country and the kind of thing that holds people together. You don't hold people together by saying: "You must do this or I'm going to hit you over the head." That's what the Attorney-General said about equalization.

The Premier is fond of going around this province and this country saying: "The fundamental problem in Quebec is an economic one." The fundamental problem in Quebec is not an economic one. It's not a problem. It's a great upwelling of culture and of pride. If you deny people their pride and say, "you must do thus and so because we are going to force you into it by economic means and we are going to grind you down until you behave the way we want, " then all you do is force people to say: "No. Some things are just a bit too much to swallow. I'm not going to play that, game. I'll pull in my belt as much as may be required in order that I can maintain my dignity."

That is exactly the 'kind of weapon the Attorney-General has put in the hands of Rene Levesque until such time as he stands up in this Legislature and withdraws the offensive words.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, it perhaps would be best if each representative of the opposition parties disposed of this particular issue before we proceed with the Attorney-General's estimates. I don't think there is a more difficult issue for anyone in this House to articulate than the problem facing Canada in regard to national unity. We all have our distinct affections for Canada, particularly, I think, people who have come from other countries and settled here and found that it has realized or more than realized their hopes. That certainly has to be the situation in Canada for me personally.

But the biggest problem is indeed communication. Any relationship between two people, two provinces or two groups can only flourish if there is communication and if the communication both ways is understood. Unfortunately, this happens in my view to be the unfortunate impact of the Attorney-General's statement regarding equalization payments which might be used as a tool to expedite the holding of a referendum in Quebec.

Mr. Chairman, I believe so earnestly in the importance of communication and I think so strongly that so many people living in different parts of Canada haven't the foggiest idea of how many people live in other parts of Canada. For many of us as westerners to pontificate about the solutions for national unity I find somewhat depressing because I for one know very little about Quebec. Yet in reading in the national media about Quebec, I can sympathize with many of the points which they're obviously trying to put forward.

Within that framework, I would have to regretfully disagree with my good friend the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) in saying that there is not a strong economic factor underlying the unrest in Quebec. Anyone who reads the national press, particularly at the time of the November 15 election, would have to come to the conclusion that many Quebeckers voted not for separatism but for a government which they believed would provide a better measure of economic and social justice within their own province. Indeed it seems to a westerner reading the national media and the press that in fact that was the very conscious presentation which Rene Levesque made in the election of last November. He did in fact play down the issue of separatism as contrasted with the tremendous emphasis which he placed on trying to deal with inflation and unemployment, as indeed any political leader should do these days.

So while I haven't got the answer to the communication problem as between peoples of one province and the people of Quebec, because I'm all too conscious of the number of British Columbians who have never even been over the mountains, let alone traveled to Quebec or lived with Quebeckers or even spent time in that province. . . .

I'm not trying to be a smart-alec; I'm just saying it's a fact of life. I don't know how we'll get around that part of the problem unless we recognize that the reason many people disagree, whether within a family or within a country, is because, in the old phrase, they

[ Page 2915 ]

don't know how the other half lives. I think communication is so vital that when a political figure such as the Attorney-General communicates by way of the statement he did, then I think it is - to put it charitably - unfortunate. It did leave the clear impression of some kind of threat by a western Canadian public figure of some importance, namely the Attorney-General of British Columbia, who might or might not be speaking just for himself or who might be articulating the government policy of British Columbia, namely that it was about time we started to shake our fist in the west and say to the Quebeckers: "We'd better have a decision via your referendum and we'd better have it pretty soon or we'll be pressing as a have province to interfere with equalization payments."

What we need in the ultimate degree these days, Mr. Chairman, is tolerance. I don't understand all the aspirations of Quebeckers and I'm sure they don't understand the aspirations of British Columbians, but it certainly will never lead to better understanding if the statements emanating from either end are inflammatory or subject to an interpretation that they are a threat, direct or indirect.

It's also very easy for one of us outside of Quebec to be very impatient. I find it very disturbing, again, as an outside observer reading the national press, that from a province which quite rightly in my opinion wants to upgrade and give justifiable emphasis and importance to their language and their culture, they should let the pendulum swing so far when they come to power that they are now about to penalize people who wish to speak English.

Freedom of choice and access to choices has to be the bedrock of any democracy, regardless of the language you speak or the culture you value. If there is true democracy there have to be choices. While French-speaking Canadians in Quebec must have every opportunity and every possible access to the language of their choosing, surely it's puzzling to believe that in democracy outside Quebec apparently now this new government is making it extremely difficult for certain persons to have access to English when that is the language of their choice. So it's easy to be impatient on the outside. There are many of the elements of this whole national dispute that I frankly just don't understand.

The one thing I feel is central and basic to the solution has to be a wider and more considered and calculated interchange of not only discussion between representatives of governments but the widest possible exchange of visits and correspondence and all kinds of communication between the residents of Quebec and the residents of the other nine provinces.

It's for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that the Destiny Canada conference which is to be held in Toronto this coming weekend is, in my opinion, a very useful step in that general, hopeful direction. I'd be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General, for example, is to be representing the government or which cabinet minister is representing British Columbia at that conference this coming weekend. The opposition parties have been accorded an invitation. It could be the start of the kind of national dialogue and the exposure of people like myself to the feelings of other leaders in the country which would open up this possibility that I mentioned to a much better understanding by each Canadian and each province as to how the other Canadians in the other nine provinces live and what their views are about national unity and how it should be preserved.

I know that what I've said sounds very much like motherhood, Mr. Chairman, but I do believe that the practical answer he's in a more tolerant and a more patient and a more calculated approach to not only the importance of communication but the way in which we carry out that communication. If there were any feelings - and I think we've all had feelings - that federal-provincial relations have been deteriorating and that there has been a divisiveness when we're all looking for unity, I think there is hope in yesterday's announcement by Mr. Lalonde, for example, that the degree to which the federal government is prepared to share 50-50 in many of the urgently needed social services across Canada should surely be a pointer that indeed this kind of better understanding between the central government and the provinces is improving.

Now, Mr. Chairman, just to finish my comments by reverting back to the Attorney-General's statement about equalization payments, I said that we all have to try and be tolerant and we all have to try and be patient, but above all else, we're all human. Nobody knows better than the 54 other members of this House that if there's one thing our Attorney-General is, he's very much a warm human being with a great sense of humour. Human beings say intemperate things which are often regretted not only by the listener but by the person who makes them.

I would just suggest, Mt. Chairman, that the Attorney-General could do no better than show his great human warmth and good nature, and would at the same time earn, I think, the admiration of many, many thousands of British Columbians, if he just simply said: "Perhaps I was a little impatient and perhaps my remarks were intemperate. I am just deeply sorry and wish to withdraw these remarks."

Too often in politics every one of us always wonders how much face you lose if you admit in public that you've either made a mistake or you've said something that perhaps on second thought you wouldn't have said. It's my personal view that you gain far more than you lose simply by admitting that you've made a mistake.

[ Page 2916 ]

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): The minister really is a bit of a Jekyll-and-Hyde figure, Mr. Chairman. He says one thing to a Social Credit meeting and another thing to this Legislature. The only thing is that we don't know whether he's Jekyll here or Hyde there, or what.

One of the things was said the other day by a very well known and, I think, revered French-Canadian, Claude Castonguay. He made the statement a couple of days ago. I had the privilege of working with Castonguay for a number of years when we were the government. He's a man who has a great feeling for his own province.

He was making some comment about what he felt was a somewhat unpatriotic business community that was flying out of the province in some kind of an attempt of a strike of capital to enable Quebec to be brought to its knees. He was making a comment about that. He was criticizing it. I'm not aware of whether he heard the Attorney-General's remarks, but he could very well have been criticizing the Attorney-General who was offering the same kind of tactic. "We'll starve them into submission. We will cut off the payments."

In all of this debate that goes on, there is very little reference given as to why the whole thing happened in the first place in terms of the change of government. There's no reference at all to the previous Bourassa government. We know that the Attorney-General's heart really is in the Liberal Party. I suppose he might find it hard to say something about that corrupt, inept government that was in power for some six years, which resulted in the people in Quebec finally opting for a government that was prepared to do something about the fundamental problems in the province. They say the fundamental problems as being unemployment and an attempt to get some control over their economy. One has to make some reference to what took place in the last six years in Quebec prior to Mr. Levesque winning the election.

It has become very popular, particularly among Liberals or former Liberals, to use this as the major issue over the next few months and perhaps into the next election, that that's the only issue concerning Canada. They are completely disregarding the problems of the economy, the problems of unemployment. We have an Attorney-General who goes to a Social Credit meeting and probably was buoyed up by the fact that everybody was applauding him. Then he went off the top of his head.

He wants to offer the olive branch. He's not repentant but he wants to offer the olive branch, which if you look at it very closely looks like a bunch of nettles. He's not serious about changing his mind on what he said the other time. I think when he spoke at the Social Credit meeting we are seeing the Attorney-General. It's very nice of the leader of the

Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) to characterize him as a nice, pleasant, warm human being. Well, he must have got a little overheated at that meeting because I don't find anything warm or pleasant about those kinds of remarks coming from a warm human being. On the contrary, I do not consider those words to be appropriate from such a warm human being. And he is a warm human being.

MR. WALLACE: They're out of keeping.

MR. LEVI: They are out of keeping. We don't know whether it's Mr. Jekyll or Dr. Hyde or Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde.

I don't know whether the Attorney-General's going to get up and do a little better at his apology than he did before because no one has been satisfied with what you've said - nobody at all! I certainly am not satisfied. I'm quite sure that people in Quebec are not satisfied. You wouldn't convince anybody of the sincerity that what you really said you said this afternoon and what you said the other day was not something you wanted to say, except when it gets down to the business of the equalization payments. Then, of, course, you're really doing what Mr. Castonguay was criticizing people for - some kind of economic strangulation of the province in order to bring them to their knees.

I'm in no way convinced, and I don't think anybody in the province is convinced, and I don't think the Premier should be convinced that you did not mean exactly what you said the other day. Your tactic in dealing with Quebec is to completely strangle it economically, and somehow they're going to be submissive. That's a form of Liberal democracy. That's the way you do it. You put the pressure on.

Just before I sit down I want to make one other comment, because the Attorney-General did tack it on to the end of his remarks. He made reference to the private policing report. I did go down to the Police Commission and read the report. But I find that it's a little difficult for 55 members of the House to have to go over to the Police Commission to read their one copy.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll table one here if you like.

MR. LEVI: You're going to table the report?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll get one for you.

MR. LEVI: Well, that's good. If the minister is going to table a report then we'll have a chance to really go into it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: But it's not the final report, you know. It's only a task force report.

[ Page 2917 ]

MR. LEVI: Yes, well, I read the thing last fall. The point is, MT. Attorney-General, I appreciate that it's only a task force report.

MR. MACDONALD: There are two reports.

MR. LEVI: There are three. It's made up of three parts. There's the body of the report; there's a draft Act and there's a second.... There are three volumes anyway; one's a draft Act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Nothing's final.

MR. LEVI: Surely with the amount of money that the government has saved over the past several months, you can afford to print up 55 more copies. It is a good report; it's worth reading. But people can't go trotting over to the Police Commission in Vancouver to read the report.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I certainly want to agree with my colleague from Vancouver East and the leader of the Liberal Party in indicating to the Attorney-General that nothing less than a retraction of the statements he made is really adequate. It's not good enough to hit someone over the head with a shillelagh and then extend the olive branch. It's rather an unequal impact, I would suggest.

What concerned me more, and I want to draw it to the attention of all members of the House - and I think it's subject to substantiation by reading the Blues - is that the statement the Attorney-General made in his initial dissertation in my view compounded the insult to the province of Quebec and completely reiterated and reaffirmed the offending statement which the House and the opposition members have been asking him to retract. He said, and this is his rough statement, Mr. Chairman: "We reserve the right to reassess equalization payments to other regions if the federal partnership is challenged" - if the federal partnership is challenged.

Now that's in no way a retraction; that is in no way an explanation of the offending statements which have been referred to by my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) . In fact, that compounds the offence. There is no question, I suppose, in the Attorney-General's mind that a challenge to the federal partnership does exist by essence of the Parti Quebecois policy of putting a referendum on continued participation in Confederation before the Quebec people. That is a challenge.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They should get to it as soon as possible, because they'll lose it.

MR. KING: Fine. I wouldn't argue with that, but your own statement, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, indicates that while that challenge prevails, a reassessment of equalization payments should be undertaken. That is threatening; that is tantamount to political blackmail.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I didn't say that.

MR. KING: It's harsh and I certainly subscribe to the view that it puts additional ammunition in the hands of the separatists who would divide this great nation.

I don't think the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia is sufficiently Well versed in the politics of the province of Quebec, or indeed national politics, to venture into this delicate area if this is the kind of statement he is going to make. I think he would be well advised to extricate himself as graciously as possible and simply retract the statement. I think he is on dangerous ground and the more he intends to hedge the issue, the deeper he will dig himself in to the detriment not only of Quebec but to the detriment of the whole nation. Do the honourable thing, Mr. Minister, and retract your statement!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to repeat to some of the hon. members what I said earlier today, which I think effectively sums up the situation. I would like to say that if my remarks offended Mr. Levesque and offended the separatists in the province of Quebec, the proposed direction that they are taking this province is offending all of the rest of the people in this country and certainly the majority of the people within the province of Quebec. I make no apologies to Mr. Levesque whatsoever.

I would again reiterate that if my remarks offended anyone else, I regret that. I never wished to do that. If my remarks were considered intemperate by anyone, as the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) stated, I'm delighted to withdraw them. But that was not the point that I was making, and I would say once again, hon. members, that it is surely not unreasonable to observe that if there is no longer a partnership in this country, all present partners in this country - and this is all of the provinces in the country - will have the right to explore other options. If you're not going to accept that as fact, I don't think we're accepting the fact of history.

MR. LLOYD: I rise in my place to speak on the Attorney-General's estimates, which I think perhaps all of us should try to get down to at times. I feel the opposition parties are playing politics and are not debating their province's estimates. Their continual plays on words requesting apologies and withdrawals

[ Page 2918 ]

only blow out of proportion supposed slights that have occurred in the remarks by the Attorney-General or others in the cabinet of British Columbia.

I believe the Attorney-General has explained very carefully the reasons for his sentiments and for his remarks and I agree fully with him. I think Rene, Levesque downplayed the separatism issue during the election campaign. If he feels it's such a strong issue, since he seems to be blowing it out of proportion since the election, why doesn't he take it back to them and get it over with so that the country can start dealing with some of the more important matters that are facing us?

I think that if the Liberal leader has so much good advice to offer everybody, perhaps he should start offering some of that particular advice to his colleagues in Ottawa. Certainly the drift that Canada is taking is going to pull the whole country apart, even without the Quebec situation. They're bankrupting the nation with their lack of economic policies and direction. The unemployment we're facing right across the nation is a disgrace in a country with the resources that we have here. The deficit they're running in billions of dollars every year is a particular disgrace. I would feel....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the member rose indicating that there had been a departure from the minister's estimates, but no departure like the one that we're enjoying now. Surely we don't have to listen to a debate this far from the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind all of the hon. members that we are on vote 57. The only reason why the debate so far has been deemed to be in order is because the Attorney-General is indeed responsible for constitutional law, and the debate has been in order.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think if the opposition member over there could spare the time to stay in the House.... We've sat through 135 hours of pointless debate, not on the policies and programmes of the government, but on politics - cheap politics. We could have been finished long before now. That was the point I was making, Mr. Chairman, when I first stood up. We were speaking on the Attorney-General's estimates and so far we haven't gone anywhere near them.

What I would like to ask the Attorney-General, since the Legislature has seen fit to pass the seatbelt legislation, which should help reduce carnage on our highways, is how the other programme is coming -the impaired driver's programme - and how much reception we are getting at the community level on this. I think it's very important that if this programme is going to get off the ground, it should receive the same type of co-operation and committee work that made the Carnage programme such a success.

While asking t hat question to the Attorney-General, I'd like to also ask him what participation or interest he's had expressed by the B.C. Hotels Association, whom I feel add quite a lot to this particular problem. A lot of the impaired drivers we have on our roads are either leaving the cocktail bars or the beer parlours, or they are leaving large social functions where certainly drinking is going on. Unless there is some co-operative programme from these hotels who always speak so specifically of their own interests - without a co-operative programme from these people - I think this impaired driving programme could probably fall short of what we really expect to get out of it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) , I'm very pleased to inform the House that even in this earlier stage there has indeed been a considerable measure of success with the programme. To that extent I would like to pay a lot of tribute to the people who have worked very hard upon it within the department, and most particularly, though, to pay tribute to the people within the communities who have responded with community interest and community involvement.

In the community we find all sectors are prepared to assist, and most especially the media. I would say that the media are very much the key to the success of the programme in the province and their contribution has been first class. That might be funny to you, Mr. Member; what I'm trying to do is save lives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. GARDOM: And I'll tell you why. The number of impaired drivers in the province of B.C. exceeds that of any other province in the country and we’ve got the highest alcohol-related accident rate in the country. Last year it caused over 300 deaths, 8,000 hospitalizations and 40,000 days of bed space. In two years the impair ed-driving offences in B.C. have increased 22 per cent, and that's a very dramatic figure. About 28 per cent of the cases now before our courts are related to drinking-driving charges, and one-half of all of the traffic fatalities relate to this. If you think, Mr. Member, that you can possibly have a change in public awareness and public attitude without having the contribution and the assistance of all of the media in this province, I would say you're strangely mistaken.

The burden to our taxpayers in dollars, not taking into account the human suffering and the loss of life and the disfigurements, comes to about $53 million a

[ Page 2919 ]

year, and that's not taking into account the dollars that are spent for human resources. There is just no way that a programme such as this can be run, managed or taken care of by a central government agency or by elected representatives. This requires community interest, community involvement and community awareness.

I'd really like to pay a great deal of tribute to probably the best initial programme that I've seen in the province - the one that was initiated in Prince George, the Take the Car out of Carnage Committee. They did a fabulous job up there.

I had the privilege, Mr. Member, of being in their high school when the five were speaking - Mr. Fry; Mr. Roach; Sgt. Tindell; Don Schoefield, the ambulance driver; Dr. Tulley Chambers, the orthopaedic surgeon, - to the children who were graduating. They had 24 chairs on the stage and they were empty. I gather the year before they had 14 chairs. They took a look at the people in the audience and they said: "How many empty chairs are we going to have next year?" If we can't get that message across, not only to our youngsters but to every one of us in this province, we are going to be into a great deal of difficulty. That committee up there has done a first-class job.

I'd say to the interested communities in B.C. that as this programme develops, if they wish any assistance and help, please look to the very great job that was accomplished there.

You know the remarks from the people who are on the scene.... It's a different thing to plead a case in the court of law or in this Legislative Assembly, but when you listen to the remarks of the people who are on the scene.... The sergeant looked across the room and spoke to these kids. He said: "You know, in three years we have had 86 people killed in our community. That's like wiping out two complete city blocks, and t hat's only as the result of drinking- driving." They established the message; they're establishing the correct message.

We're getting excellent co-operation from the police forces in the province. I can assure you that the roadblocks are going to continue. This is probably the first time in the history of the province that we ever had a province-wide road check. They stopped 37,000 vehicles on that one day, laid 158 charges and 178 24-hour suspensions. These are going to be ongoing on a random basis throughout the province throughout the year.

Again, I was impressed with a ghastly statistic when I was in the riding of our colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) . In your area there were 33 people killed since the first of the year. There is only one way we can cope with that and that is to cope with it as individual citizens. We've got to appreciate that there is not any glamour in being intoxicated behind the wheel of a car.

Sergeant Dindell said: "What do you call a fellow who drinks and drives? You call him an idiot!"

Then he said another thing I've not forgotten. He talked about the people who say: "It's not going to happen to me." That's the smug majority.

He said, "It can. I don't want to have to put your body into a body bag."

He said the worst thing is having to tell the family. "They don't believe you or they go into immediate shock."

The ambulance driver said the worst thing that he experienced is when a person in an ambulance says: "Where's Fred?" or "Where's George?" or "Where's Mary?" Where's the person they were in the car with? The ambulance driver said: " If I tell them they're in the other ambulance, I'm lying because they're dead. If they were still alive we could put them in this ambulance."

This is why we're trying to make an attack on this thing. This is why every member in this House, I know, will do everything he can to contribute to it.

MR. LLOYD: I asked you to clarify if you are getting much participation from the B.C. Hotels Association - either as a provincial body or on a community level. Are the hotel operators and cocktail restaurant operators being involved in this? I understand that when they first brought in the breathalysers they put some balloons by the doors. Even something like this brought to the drivers' attention when they were leaving that they were going to be driving impaired.... I just wonder how much participation we are really getting from the Hotels Association.

HON. MR. GARDOM: At this juncture we have received an indication of 100 per cent from them, and we cannot thank them enough for that.

As this programme develops, as you know, we are going to have these vehicles throughout the province. So far there are 14 on order. They've been called the Batmobiles. They've worked very successfully in two other provinces of Canada and in the United States -once again, creating public awareness.

In dealing with the aspect of public awareness, we're going to have some central advertising, primarily to try to get into the community areas as well. I would like everybody in the province of B.C. to be fully apprised of the penalties. I'd like to see that posted in every bar, in every liquor store and on every gas pump in the province. We don't wish people to be taken by surprise as to what they're going to be running into if they happen to be apprehended on the road whilst they're impaired.

MR. MACDONALD: There have been some interesting topics come up. I just want to congratulate the Attorney-General, if I heard him correctly. I want to conclude, so far as I'm

[ Page 2920 ]

concerned, the discussion on Confederation. In his clarification of May 21, the Attorney-General had said equalization payments to Quebec should be used as a bargaining lever to force Quebec Premier Rene Levesque to hold an independence referendum.

As I heard the Attorney-General today, he said he regretted the matter and then he went on to say: "If anyone thinks those words were intemperate, I withdraw them." I think that's what he said. If so, I take those words as having been retracted and I congratulate the Attorney-General for saying that. If I have overstated it, I would like him to say so. But I think that's the situation and he should be congratulated in retracting. However distasteful that may be it's necessary in this case.

On the impaired driving programme, it's very essential that this programme be promoted in the province of British Columbia. All of the reasons the Attorney-General gave are completely valid. It must not be allowed to become sort of a one-month thing; it's got to be a continuing programme of public education and law, enforcement.

One thing about that that does bother me. We had a suggestion from the Attorney-General that the impaired limit for the purpose of being stopped and deprived of driving rights should be 0.05 per cent. But we have now in the Criminal Code of Canada three offences: we have 0.08 per cent; then we have an offence of impaired driving; then we have the offence of drunk driving. I very much doubt the wisdom of the provincial government producing a new level or a new offence - at least an offence whereby a person can be taken off the road -because you've got an enforcement problem. You're going to begin to get a confusion problem. Really, it is a federal domain of legislation. As I say, three offences exist on the statute books of Canada and enforcement has not been all that great in terms of enforcing the law that exists. So I'm very doubtful that the province should begin to create a provincial offence in what is a federal field. They seem to be moving in that direction as a result of the remarks of the Attorney-General.

If, in some way, we could really enforce throughout this province the penalties of the law and prohibition against all those who were 0.08, the carnage problem would disappear, in my opinion, but there are an awful lot of 0.08s who drive. I think our road should be public education and law enforcement, but not make the law enforcement more difficult by creating a fourth category.

Now I want to ask the Attorney-General, on another subject, about the famous political blacklist, and I'm sure he'll clear this up by issuing his opinion. I'm not going to ask about the leak because I've always felt, you know, that the leak is part of democratic government. Without it, we'd sometimes not know what was going on and things would be hushed up.

MR. BARRETT: Even the minister wouldn't know about them.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't care about leaks. If the minister wants to say that he's got a report from his very capable deputy on the question of the leak of the blacklist information, and he wants to table that, fine. It was an in-house investigation and if he wants to leave it in the House, fine. If he wants to table it in the Legislature, that's fine.

But that whole investigation, Mr. Chairman, missed the point. The point which was first raised by the NDP House Leader was that in the office of the Premier, under the Premier's stationery and letterhead, we have a member of the public service producing a letter in which he made some unflattering political designations about people in the public service.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, unflattering in that some of them were named as Social Crediters; others were identified as NDPers, and that's flattery.

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: But then there was the Premier's guru, Mr. Dan Campbell. Oh, Danny boy! He did something that was entirely reprehensible, because he forwarded the letter, as I recall the evidence, and then he made his own identifications in forwarding it to the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . He said: "This one's a Socred, this one's somebody else, this one's an NDPer - one of the peons."

MR. BARRETT: He even named dirty Liberals.

MR. MACDONALD: That, of course, was wholly out of accord with our constitutional proprieties in democratic government, because the public service has to be outside of politics. Dan Campbell has never had a word of reprimand from the Premier and, when this was drawn to the attention of the Attorney-General, what does he do? He says: "Let's investigate how this leaked out."

MR. BARRETT: It's okay - just don't get caught.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, okay, investigate the leak if you will, but here you have a plumbers unit operating out of the Premier's office. Instead of identifying the culprit, they try to nail down the leak

[ Page 2921 ]

- if you can nail down a leak. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's possible. It happened in Watergate.

MR. MACDONALD: But why would the Attorney-General step into that instead of saying that under our constitution there is an offence here in a public servant circulating this thing? Maybe it was a light offence, and maybe not. I recall very distinctly that Terry Ison got his notice about that time, eh? He was summarily fired.

MR. BARRETT: Right.

MR. MACDONALD: He was head of the Workers' Compensation Board and was fired even though he'd offered to resign by the June of that year. Norman Pearson in the Lands and Forests department was summarily fired shortly after this incident. There was a real problem to investigate, and the Attorney-General should say: "As the chief law officer of the Crown, I'm drawing to the government's attention, and the Premier's attention, that the investigation should not be into the leak; it should be into the offence, and the offence was by Dan Campbell." I think the Attorney-General acted entirely improperly in going along with the Premier's suggestion that all we have to look at is how this information came to light. There was - and still is -in the records of the public service of British Columbia, knowledge that certain public servants have been named for their party affiliation and some have not. They will certainly have the suspicion in the backs of their minds that if they were named as a little bit left of centre or even centre - with this government, even centre is far of the left - they will be denied promotion, if not worse.

So the Attorney-General, in my submission, acted entirely wrongly in that situation in not following up the proper investigation. What I'm asking at the present time is that the Attorney-General give us his comments on the propriety of Dan Campbell in the Premier's office using the Premier's stationery and circulating a political list about civil servants. I think we should have the Attorney-General's firm assurance that, firstly, this was not proper conduct on the part of Dan Campbell under the statutes of the province; and, secondly, it will not be allowed to happen again. That's a modest request, but I think an important one.

Now the other subject I will refer to at this time is the starvation of the legal services in the Attorney-General's estimates. I can't place it too strongly because, as I see it, the Legal Aid Society's work, and the other work that is under the Legal Services Commission, is going to come to a grinding, shuddering halt by September of this year under the $7.3 million that is being allotted by this Legislature for those services. I just refer to the figures here as I've put them together.

In the 1975-76 fiscal year the Legal Aid Society got $5.1 million.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Don't you want to do this in a special vote? There is a special vote for this.

MR. MACDONALD: No, this goes to the heart of the thing. This goes to the heart of the Attorney-General's estimates because it goes to the question of whether we're going to have silver-spoon justice in this province or whether we're going to provide necessary legal help for the disadvantaged in society. At the present time that is exactly the path on which this government has embarked. In not maintaining the level of legal aid. . . . I know that's an all-embracing term. It includes everything from native court workers to duty counsel to direct legal aid provided through the legal aid offices and the community law offices. But in not providing that measure of support, this government shows its basic characteristic, which is that those who can afford to hire the best lawyer can have their day in court and those who cannot are going to have a much poorer day.

MR. BARRETT: Remember his old speeches on behalf of legal aid?

MR. MACDONALD: I'll quote one, since you mentioned it. You loved those old speeches, Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Right!

MR. MACDONALD: This is what the Attorney-General said when we brought in the Legal Services Commission Act which, incidentally, was criticized in the report cui bono but was unanimously voted by this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: Cui Bono - he's the head of B.C. Hydro.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is the Attorney-General speaking:

This is something that I have argued and pleaded and cajoled and advocated way back since 1966. I can tell you, for me this is a banner day to see that we have brought this bill into this province because there is one characteristic of the law that has been burdened from the outset, and that has been its inaccessibility to those people who are economically underprivileged.

Yet today that's precisely the direction that we're taking, because the total legal-aid budget - $7.3 million, an increase of $300,000 from last year's

[ Page 2922 ]

budget - does not, as Bryan Ralph of the Legal Aid Society says, even cover the normal salary increases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. You have now specifically mentioned the amount of money to be discussed under vote 64. I must ask you to save these remarks until we discuss vote 64, and get back to the minister's office.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll desist from that.

You know, the whole question of legal services to the people of this province ...

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Be in order.

MR. MACDONALD: is in order, as the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources says.

The point is, Mr. Chairman - and I think you'll appreciate this - that the provincial government has, under the legal-aid agreement with the government of Canada, received roughly an extra $800,000. I make it about $600,000 but other people here say $800,000. It went up from 50 cents per capita to 75 cents last year. When you take that into the per capita of the province of B.C., the government has another $800,000 of public funds earmarked by the federal government to provide legal services to the people the Attorney-General says are underprivileged. It's been cut off and denied to them. All of the people in the Legal Aid Society are saying: "We can't possibly carry on for the full year with even the present level of services, let alone extending them, let alone providing the community law officers with one legal person attached to their staff." There are 14 of them and they are supposed to have a lawyer there. There is supposed to be better training in those community law offices.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're now getting into detail on vote 64. Perhaps we could save this discussion until the specific call of vote 64.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the thing that disturbs me is not only the deprivation of funds in this area; it's the solution the Attorney-General has been proposing to it. He said this last February: "The government will begin official negotiations this month for a new agreement with Ottawa which will deny all legal aid to all persons charged with drug trafficking, some types of impaired-driving charges and to all people with a previous criminal record."

MR. BARRETT: Did he say that?

MR. MACDONALD: In other words, the repeats.

MR. BARRETT: He passes judgment.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the repeats in our society who come before the criminal courts regularly are very often people who come from poor families - almost all of them. They have not had good employment opportunity; they do not have job skills; they do not have social acceptability; they are kind of the lost. To talk about denying those people their day in court when they are charged but not guilty.... What the Attorney-General is saying, in effect, when he says, "we won't give legal aid to a repeat offender, " is that "we've already found you guilty. "

He has usurped the position of the court and said: "The presumption-of-innocence doctrine goes out the window. I find that you were previously convicted and you are not entitled to a lawyer at your trial on this occasion."

MR. BARRETT: Whether you've been rehabilitated or not.

MR. MACDONALD: And I don't like drug traffickers at all, but I don't know why you should deny legal aid to somebody who is charged with drug trafficking but not found guilty because the Attorney-General stepped into the picture and says: "On that crime, I'm going to say you're going to suffer this penalty. Even though you can't afford a lawyer, you shall not be represented in court by one through the Legal Aid Society." Why doesn't he apply that to murder? What about rape? What about drunk driving? Of course we don't like drunk drivers, but are we going to say, in effect, that you're guilty of something before your trial takes place because we're going to deny you legal aid? That's what's being said by the Attorney-General. I say what we're heading for in this province is silver-spoon justice. This is not an issue that concerns that government because that government is supported by the more privileged interests in the province of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: The millionaires' gang.

MR. MACDONALD: The Attorney-General talks about going back to Ottawa and to his old Liberal colleagues and perhaps persuading them to put this kind of regressive thinking into the federal-provincial agreement of legal aid. We don't have to defend these repeat people; they're just part of the herd. Let them go through the grist of the criminal courts and come out so badly battered from that experience that they'll repeat, repeat, repeat, again and again and again. That's what we're talking about under the Attorney-General's salary, Mr. Chairman.

The direction in which we're going in starving legal aid which last year - if you can believe that cui bono report - received $9 million in all. Now,

[ Page 2923 ]

notwithstanding the additional income of about $800,000 a year coming into the provincial government's hands, it is going to receive $7.3 million this year. The members of the Legal Aid Society say they cannot maintain even the present level of services, let alone proceed with the training, and the extension of those services which are so badly needed in the province of British Columbia.

I predict, Mr. Chairman, that Ron Basford, the Minister of Justice - a Liberal! - will not buy that proposition. I don't think he'll buy that proposition and amend the agreement so that repeats can't get legal aid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. MACDONALD: I don't think he'll buy the proposition that you've got to starve the legal aid budget so that in the family courts you have wives appearing to fight for maintenance or custody and cannot get legal aid. I know a lot of them have in a hodge-podge way and a lot of them have not. They've appeared in court and their husband, from whom they're separated, has a lawyer there because he's the breadwinner in most cases, and they appear without counsel. If you don't think that's happening in the province of British Columbia, go into the various centres of the province such as Nanaimo. I know there are exceptions where through the offices of the Attorney-General counsel is sometimes provided, but it's not' the rule. It should be a principle of right that if society is willing to spend very large sums of money in prosecuting individuals who are in conflict with the law, then they should make sure that those who are charged have a little bit of those public funds to defend themselves. You can't increase the one without the other.

MR. BARRETT: Big brother!

MR. MACDONALD: Yet we're seeing this government turn its back on legal services to the disadvantaged in this province, to kill it with financial attrition and to decide that people are going to be subjected to the penalty of no proper defence in court before they've had their day in court. I say that that direction, Mr. Chairman, is totally wrong.

MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: The budget of the Attorney-General's department must reflect, through a supplementary vote, enough funds to at least carry on the present level of legal aid which was established, as I said, by unanimous vote of this Legislature. Everybody says they can't carry on even the present level with the budgetary restrictions imposed by this new coalition government.

There are whole areas where those services have to be improved, not cut back.

MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: I say this is a very dark and retrogressive step that is being taken by the Attorney-General and quite contrary to the presumption of innocence which is a basic feature of our legal system.

MR. BARRETT: If you're convicted of being a Liberal, you don't get any help when you're charged with being a Socred.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. One of the difficulties of the estimates process is that we jump around a lot from topic to topic. I guess it's unavoidable. I would not say, notwithstanding the apparent opinion of the hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) , that the national unity debate hasn't been an important one here. I believe that it has. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) congratulated the Attorney-Genera I on what he construed to be his backing off his position on the Quebec equalization question. I hope that it was not a premature congratulation. I'd like to try and nail it down just a bit more.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Read it tomorrow!

MR. GIBSON: I was listening closely to the loudspeaker in my office when the Attorney-General spoke and I understood it to be a conditional withdrawal. I understood the Attorney-General to have said that if his remarks had offended anyone other than Mr. Levesque and his separatists, he would withdraw them. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see the conditional part removed from that because I can assure the Attorney-General that they have in fact offended people. They've certainly offended people in British Columbia, I can guarantee him that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're not a separatist, are you?

MR. GIBSON: Whether they've offended the separatists or not - we just finished saying to the Attorney-General that nothing could delight the separatists more than his statement. It hasn't offended them - we can tell him that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Trudeau offends them every day of the week and I'm glad he does.

MR. GIBSON: But it's offended ordinary people in Quebec. So will you take the conditional clause

[ Page 2924 ]

out of it and not say: "If people have a lot of admiration for a person who can now and again say: 'Yes, I was wrong. I'm sorry I said that. It was in the heat of the moment . . . "

Let me say to you as a British Columbian. Do you recall a couple of years ago, in 1973 and 1974, when all of a sudden we were starting to make a lot of money in our commodities - our natural gas, our copper? Alberta was starting to make a lot of money out of its oil. Now suppose in those days the province of Ontario had said to the federal government: "Look, we need those British Columbian metals and we need that Alberta oil. We don't like the way those people are moving to raise the prices so much and take all of the money into their own treasuries. We think that until they get off this ridiculous constitutional posture of appropriating money that should be going to the federal taxes - and thereby indirectly to Ontario - you should withhold Canada Assistance Plan payments from them until such time as they've backed off that constitutional posture."

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's an analogy to what you suggested on the province of Quebec. Suppose an Ontario minister stood up in the House in response to that and said: "Well, if it offended anyone in British Columbia, I would withdraw it."

There shouldn't be any "if' to this kind of question, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. I would just ask the minister to just clearly and simply stand up, do the big and generous thing and say: "I, withdraw the remarks I made concerning the withholding of equalization payments due to the province and people of Quebec." Would he please just simply say that, with no conditional clause?

MR. LEVI: I want to spend a little time on two things; one is to endorse the statements made by my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) on the legal aid programme. It certainly reminds me of what the situation was in this province some 15 years ago when there was no legal aid. At that time, there was an incredible situation where a number of criminals who were known as habitual criminals were going before the courts without legal aid.

At that time the rule was that if you had a conviction you couldn't get legal aid. Now we're talking about 1962. I recall when an individual went to the appeal court after having been found to be an habitual criminal, and one of the judges on the appeal court actually said, after the man said that he couldn't get legal aid: "But my man, the only people entitled to legal aid in this country are those people who can afford to pay for it." That was the kind of remark we got in those days. Then we made some progress.

But the best progress was made when the. last government was in. The commitment was made. It was not just a commitment by the NDP, it was also the Attorney-General's commitment - and from his party - that there should be legal aid. We've seen a slow erosion of the legal aid system very much in keeping with the kind of philosophy that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has -that far too much money is going into legal aid so that women and people who have to go into family court somehow can be aided in perhaps severing a marriage that has not worked for a number of years. He was opposed to that; he actually spoke out. I haven't heard the Attorney-General say anything about that.

I want to talk for a minute about the courts. In all the years that I was in the corrections field, one of the things that used to bother me about the courts was that they tended to be something of an arena for a very select group of people. I have in mind the judge, the prosecutor, and the defence counsel. Occasionally, if there was a trial and there was a jury there, they might be included. I was recently in a Vancouver court watching a murder case. I was sitting at the back alongside three other people who were complaining that they couldn't hear anything. They couldn't hear a word. All that was going on was going on in the arena in front of the judge and everything was kind of entrée nous and the rest of the spectators might just as well have not been there.

In fact, the foreman of the jury got up in part of the trial and asked if they could speak up because the jury couldn't hear anything. There is nothing in our courts that's designed to involve the public in terms of listening or being able to hear what's going on. It's a complete private kind of club between the lawyers and judges. That's what it is and it always has been.

When you go into the police court you see the same kind of thing, with no consideration whatsoever for the public. There's only consideration for the judge, that he's got to have a shower and everybody else has got to have their proper office. But there's no consideration for the public. And if you feel that the public has a right to understand what goes on and has to know what the laws are, well, one of the things that they have to be able to do in court is to hear. Generally speaking you can't hear anything.

There's a complete lack of understanding by the people who are in the courts and who run the courts that the public comes down there in order to listen. We're not asking them to participate, but they should certainly be able to know what's going on.

Now I want to tell you about a case. The other day I went to family court on Yale Street. I went because I'd been approached by a woman who had a problem.

[ Page 2925 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is this the one you mentioned to me?

MR. LEVI: That's the one I mentioned, and I'm going to read you the letter because I didn't get a reply when I wrote to you on May 12.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I haven't got your letter, Norm.

MR. LEVI: It was hand delivered to your office by my secretary - hand delivered right to your door.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've never seen it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've got it right here.

MR. LEVI: Oh, that's right - it was written in blood. The Minister of Mines is right again. Let me just read this letter, and as I read it I'm going to comment. I wrote to the Attorney-General regarding - and I have permission from the woman to read this and to mention her name - Rachel Thomas, nee deBacker:

"No doubt you will have heard of this particular case. If you haven't, your executive assistant has, and I'm sure that your Attorney-General has heard about it. No doubt you will have heard of this particular case since I think it has been around the courts since 1964.

"I have known Mrs. Thomas for the last five years. In fact, in 1972 I was asked to chair the welfare appeal board in which she was making an appeal. The reason I'm writing to you is that after a very careful investigation of Mrs. Thomas's situation in the family court system, I must say that I was appalled at the incredible abuse of the system, and, of course, the cost to the taxpayer. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am criticizing the system and I'm not dealing with individuals."

And I meant that. All I want you to do is examine the system.

"I'm sure you realize that as the system operates the individuals become somewhat invisible and the sheer weight of the system .creates the momentum and things tend to go on forever. In this case, they've gone on forever.

"The Thomases were married for two years and then they separated. For the past 13 years they've been in and out of the family court."

They were married two years, Thomas and deBacker - previously it was Thomas, now it's deBacker.

"In fact, when I went through the files at the family court in Vancouver I noticed that a running record had been kept on the number of appearances, and it was with some surprise that I find that Mr. and Mrs. Thomas have been in and out of court on 78 occasions since November 25,1964. The Thomases are due to appear in court again on June 9, making it the 79th appearance."

Now I went to the court on June 9, and sat through the hearing - 79 appearances.

"I am reliably informed that it costs the taxpayer approximately $500 for a court appearance per day. It's interesting to note that on nearly all the occasions of court appearances, there have been present the judge, the Crown prosecutor, a lawyer, court reporter, court clerk, one and sometimes two probation officers, and then you add to this some witnesses.

"It might be reasonably estimated that $40,000 of taxpayers' money has been expended within the family court system to resolve a dispute that exists between the Thomases. That dispute is in relation to a maintenance order that was originally made on September 27,1965, by Judge Selby where an order was made that Mr. Thomas would pay maintenance for his son of $70 per month.

"On November 6,1968, three years later, the maintenance order was varied to $90. We find that by February, 1974, Mr. Thomas was some $3,100 in arrears. I noted on the file some 38 or more applications by Mrs. Thomas for a variation in the maintenance money. There were a number that Mr. Thomas initiated for a variation for a reduction. Mrs. Thomas has been charged on three occasions for failing to allow Mr. Thomas his visiting privileges, and the June 9 case was going to deal with just that kind of a problem."

Now I addressed my question to the Attorney-General, and I said:

"My question to you, sir, as the chief law enforcement officer of the province, is: when is this waste of taxpayers' money going to stop? It's quite obvious to me that there will never be a resolution of this problem as long as these two people have to deal with one another. What I have not mentioned in all of this" - I've got a suggestion and it's in there - "is: what is happening in the supreme court? They've had at least two actions going for a petition of a piece of property."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Perhaps if the opposition party could hold their caucus in their caucus rooms we could hear the second member for Vancouver-Burrard. I have called the government benches to order on several prior occasions, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , so I'm sure you won't be offended today if I call you

[ Page 2926 ]

to order. Will the second member for Vancouver-Burrard please proceed?

MR. LEVI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thought I was listening to ' myself but I found out it was my colleague, the first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) .

"Now in respect to the Thomas case, the law does not seem to be able to resolve the problem. I would like to suggest to you that another form be tried, and this be in respect to an arbitration. It could be made up of a chairman and a representative from either side where they could arbitrate their differences, but not within the somewhat restricted meaning of the Family Relations Act."

The Attorney-General indicates that it can't be done. Well, I think in the interest....

HON. MR. GARDOM: No. I said they can do it today, if they chose.

MR. LEVI: They could do it today? Well, I think what we need is some kind of instruction because you can go to that family court in Vancouver. . .

HON. MR. GARDOM: You can't compel them to do it.

MR. LEVI: ... and you can find not just one case like this, but dozens of cases like this. Somehow there's got to be an attempt on the part of the Attorney-General's ministry to look at these things in a somewhat non-legalistic way after they've gone through the court. This thing has been in court some 14 years - almost 14 years in and out of court - to argue for maintenance payments varying from $75 to $90 a month which, at the most, doesn't come to more than $16,000, and yet it has cost the taxpayer in excess of $40,000.

This is a classical example of a system that moves forward by the sheer weight of paper and the sheer weight of the law which says you have an option to make an application for a variation.

I suggest that there should be an arbitration method tried. You've got to try some other method. There's got to be some attempt made to terminate this most exhausting case, and it's only one example of many. So what we're looking for is some kind of innovative approach by the minister's department.

We set out to do this when the unified family court was developed in 1974, but there has been no expansion to the unified family court. When I had an opportunity to speak to some of the staff there, they said this is an ideal case for the unified family court but they don't happen to live in an area where there's a unified family court so the thing will just go grinding on at an incredible, mounting cost to the taxpayer.

I'd like the Attorney-General to not just say that it could be done now if the parties agreed to do it. There needs to be some kind of policy developed within the department where the staff is informed that there's got to be some benchmark when you have to say: "We cannot go any further with this in a legal way and we've got to try some other mechanism."

I noticed the judge who was trying the case when I was in court - a monument of patience. Here were these two people like a couple of bullfighters. It was incredible, and that's been going on for 13 years. I think it would be different - and I say this somewhat cynically - if it was held in an arena and everyone could watch. Some of it was entertaining and some of it was quite tragic.

I want to raise with the Attorney-General one other question. I would like to get him to make his comments regarding the kidnapping of children. I just want to talk now briefly about those children who are taken out of the country or out of the province, as the cases have been in British Columbia, by the fathers, usually. I did write to the Deputy Attorney-General about one particular case that involved a child who was kidnapped and taken to another country. Subsequently the father was charged with abduction. Later on, as a result of some pressures by the particular government of that country, the charges were dropped.

I'd like the Attorney-General to pay some attention because I'd like him to spell out for me just what is the policy in respect to the government in cases where one of the parents kidnaps a child. In this particular case that I wrote about the charges were dropped against the individual. I'll just quote from part of the letter which says:

"As a matter of policy we have tried to argue that the use of the criminal law in cases of this sort is most inappropriate. When used, it has not proved successful, and we have therefore taken the position of trying to encourage the parties to pursue their remedies in the civil courts of both jurisdictions."

Ironically enough, a week after I received this letter, there was a case in New Brunswick where a father had taken a child from British Columbia and went to New Brunswick. Your department charged him with abduction and had him brought back here. So I was a little bit perplexed about that as to whether there'd been a change of policy.

Now obviously the Attorney-General didn't know about this, but that's okay. I don't expect him to know about everything.

There is at the moment, as the Attorney-General probably knows, a lot of discussion going on in Ottawa. There's a private member's bill before the House of Commons that was put there by Mr. Benno

[ Page 2927 ]

Friesen, in which he is attempting to do something about this problem.

I think I'm saying this basically for the protection of the parent that has custody of the child. In the case - and I don't want to mention the name - that I wrote to the Deputy Attorney-General about, there were some very serious concerns by the family. The only insurance they felt they had was that as long as the charge was pending, the father would not come back to the country. So that was acting as some kind of a deterrent. When that was lifted, they felt they were wide open for that kind of thing.

It is worthwhile, I think, for the Attorney-General to spell out for the benefit of a number of parents who have some very real fear about this kind of thing exactly what king of action is being taken. Now I appreciate that we do not have, unfortunately, on the federal level the kinds of mechanisms through the External Affairs department that we should have. When I was the Minister of Human Resources, I had to deal with two or three of these cases, and I must say that I found it extremely frustrating to deal with the federal people on trying to bring something about - even bringing children who have actually been kidnapped back to the country. I realize that it becomes a little difficult semantic-wise to charge a parent with kidnapping their own child, but there's the issue of who had the custody.

So I would like the Attorney-General, if he would, to comment on the first case, which relates to the endless legal process which doesn't bring about a resolution, as in the Thomas and deBacker case, and also in the kidnapping of children. Does the department have a specific policy and, if it does, would he mind informing the House about it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member raised the point of the courts and facilities for the general public. I think the member is aware of the fact that we're certainly doing our level best to improve court facilities. We've just announced. . . .

MR. LEVI: Not for the public ...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes, my dear friend.

MR. LEVI: . . . only for the judges.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, no, no, no.

MR. LEVI: Only for the judges!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, listen for a moment, Norm. We've announced a new court facility for New Westminster - 11 courtrooms in New Westminster, which will certainly take care of the needs of the public, the needs of the accused and the needs of everyone.

MR. LEVI: That's only one more than they've got now.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Furthermore we have announced in the city of Vancouver two new family courts, and we've managed to do that in the past 18 or 19 months. I think your government's contribution, without being overly critical or snide, to the court situation was to spend a preposterous amount of money for edifices in the city of Vancouver, which I must say will be a great compliment to the city, but from the point of view of the judicial process alone, it's a pretty darn expensive route to take. Some of those dollars could be better applied. If the judgment decisions that were entered into weren't as weak as they were, I think we'd have been able to do a better job than we've been able to do to this point in time in our government. But I must say that within a very short space of time, the renovations to courtrooms throughout the province and the announcement of new court facilities have really been dramatic approaches in the short period of time that we've been here.

I agree with you. Sure, the public are entitled to better conditions. I used to make these points in the House before and my attitude hasn't altered in the slightest. The acoustics in some of the structures are rotten and we'll just have to do the best we can to get them improved, priorities and dollars being available. Of course in any estimate of this department we have to try to do our best to balance priorities. That, as you know, sir, being a former minister, is at times a very difficult thing to do.

Dealing with the case of the two individuals you met, I agree with you that it's a shocking situation. I would have rather wished to have heard you as a minister of the Crown draw that to the attention of the House because it's been continuing since 1964 and it certainly hasn't abated during the time your administration was in place.

You said: "Do something." I agree with you; I'd like to see something done. This is a love-hate situation. You appreciate that kind of syndrome, having been a professional man in this area. You suggest an arbitration method. The arbitration method is open today if they'll agree to it. But you're surely not going to suggest that we compel people to take that kind of a route. You're saying that's the kind of route to take.

MR. LEVI: Yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, you're introducing a new form of judicial process in the country. I don't know whether that would be considered to be acceptable, whether you're forcing people to adjudicate their difficulties or leave it up to them to take that route if they so choose. What you're

[ Page 2928 ]

essentially saying, sir, is: "Thou shalt be compelled to court - both sides." Well, it's a novel approach. It's certainly not one that I'd want to reject offhand. I can't honestly say that I warm to it, but I will certainly see that it's looked into.

Dealing with the problem, I do hope that you will be cheered to the cockles of your little heart when we bring in our amendments to the Family Relations Act, which hopefully will solve some of the difficulties that you're speaking of. It will provide for better and more equitable distribution of family assets at the time of dissolution of marriage than had heretofore existed in the province of British Columbia. So I'd say we're making some considerable strides there, and also in the area of enforcement of maintenance orders of those people who have the capacity to pay. We're not going to see that those who have the capacity to pay are able to run away into the night and leave their responsibilities to their friends, neighbours, somebody else or the general public to take care of. Again I'm stressing the fact that it is those who have the capacity to pay.

Dealing with this particular situation once again I think it's rather unfair to the people to get into their file detail by detail. If it's been going on since 1964 there has been a round of judicial hearings, -a round of lawyers involved in it, a round of counsellors involved in it. This, quite frankly, has become the raison d'etre, I suppose, of these two individuals. In most cases it takes two to tango, you know, and it takes two to do the other thing as well. They seem to be maybe devil-bent to see that they're going to do each other in to whatever extent they possibly can in an economic sense. The very best advice that you could give to them - and I think I would give to them - is to go out and have a breath of fresh air for a few days and just see if they could possibly get their own differences reconciled without the intervention of outside authorities and without the attendant expense and heartbreak to them as well. But that might be pretty difficult if you've been carrying on for 13 years with the gloves on or off.

MR. LEVI: He didn't touch on the kidnapping. I think that I really must say that the Attorney-General's being a little bit naive about all this. When I said that there's got to be some level at which the taxpayer is prepared to yell very loud and say: "Stop! We are not prepared to provide at the taxpayers' expense a forum for you people to argue out your differences on an annual basis or on a tri-annual basis. . . ." Because it's, been going on and on and on. There has to be an intercession by government.

We have taken the position in law in some situations where we expect people to adhere to a level of behaviour. Earlier on the minister was talking about impaired driving. We expect that when people are arrested they will take a breathalyser test. I think we have a right in some cases to expect that people can simply not go on abusing the system. And I'm not just identifying these two people as the ones who abuse the system; the staff also tend to abuse the system. They see it; it doesn't work out; we put it over; we have another case; and it goes on and on forever. But that's not a good situation in that respect; it's not a good situation.

The minister has indicated he is going to bring in some amendments to the Family Relations Act in respect to maintenance. I would like to have the minister comment. I have raised the case twice in this House, both times with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , who simply doesn't understand the case so we don't really expect to get any action from him. He has now lifted his head so we can obviously refer to the case.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It's this Scafidi case. I might point out to the Attorney-General that in both of these cases I have sought and received permission to raise these cases and use the names because I also had to get permission to go and look at their files. So that I did get.

In this Scafidi case I want to raise this principle with the Attorney-General. Perhaps he would comment on it. I'm not aware of a principle in the Family Relations Act that seems to be enforceable so that when it comes to an order for maintenance, that maintenance payment is paid as a first call on the assets of the person who has to pay it.

For instance in this Scafardi case, which I have now read twice into the record in this House, we have an individual who has an income of some $36,000. Yet listed by Mr. Abel, the court registrar who looked at the situation, are a whole series of obligations that he has: $600 to the bank, $500 on a car and $350 on a condominium. Yet his wife is in receipt of welfare to the tune of some $5 60 a month.

I don't want the Attorney-General to give me any legal advice, because he can't really do that; he's over there to advise the government. In a matter of maintenance payments, does the court have first call on the first payment made or does it have to wait right to the bitter end? The Attorney-General indicates that, I presume, they do have.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. LEVI: Oh, they don't have? Ah, well then, if they don't have, it's my submission that they should have.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a question of cutting the pie.

[ Page 2929 ]

MR. LEVI: Well, MT. Attorney-General, if you're going to have a situation where there is a maintenance order made, surely the maintenance of a wife or child should be in such a way that the first call on the money or the assets that the individual has should be for the maintenance of their family. Now it does not seem to be the case as a matter of practice. As a matter of fact, I'm informed by the people in the courts that the principle is agreed to but it's not being carried out. There is a general agreement that that's the way it should be.

Well, I would hope that when you bring in your Family Relations Act amendment there might be some way of insisting within the Act that the first call on an individual's assets or income will be the maintenance of his children and his wife if such an order is made. Otherwise, if we don't do that, then we have an individual who is living at a fairly high level, as we have in this Scafardi case, and the wife is living on $560 of welfare where the husband has failed to pay, as the order shows, some $4,000 and only paid $1,200 in one year - that kind of thing.

And the other question too, in terms of maintenance payments. . . I think the Attorney-General knows as well as any of us in this House that fortunately 90 per cent of the cases in terms of maintenance orders are adhered to. The only ones we hear about are the ones where there are incredible ....

HON. MR. GARDOM: How many?

MR. LEVI: About 90 per cent of all of the orders that I'm aware of when I was in the government are paid. People actually pay them; there aren't any problems. It's usually the 5 to 10 per cent of cases where there are incredible differences that you always have a tough time picking them up.

If the minister has indicated that he is going to bring in some amendments, I'm really happy about it. I hope he will consider that kind of an amendment. If he doesn't, then I'll hopefully try and make such an amendment on the floor. It is important that we establish some kind of principle. Perhaps the Minister of Human Resources better do it. It's no good you telling us that we should have done it while we were government. We were busy doing lots of things.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

We also had a problem with priorities, but there are situations now where you're addressing yourself to this particular problem.

Bear in mind that we had the Berger commission on family and children's law and we were looking for the kind of information before we moved. You have the advantage of having that information and you can move. I agree, Mr. Attorney-General, that's probably what you're basing your legislation on.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not all.

MR. LEVI: Oh, they are not.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not all.

MR. LEVI: Not all. Well, you see, he has a tough time, the Attorney-General. He can't give any credit at all to the previous government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, baloney! Certainly. Always do!

MR. LEVI: He has to keep telling us that he made an announcement about courts. Where are the courts? All you've done is made an announcement.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In New Westminster.

MR. LEVI: Last year you came barrelling into the House. You made an announcement of an ombudsman bill and it died on the order paper.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Rae Eddie used to make great speeches about the courthouse and that's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LEVI: I was talking with my colleague from New Westminster about that courthouse, and you would have done a lot better to build the ICBC building. My God, you were going to have 1,800 people working in there.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about with the courthouse?

MR. LEVI: And what have you got - 200 people in the courthouse?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You don't agree with it?

MR. LEVI: You're not going...

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're disagreeing with the courthouse in New Westminster?

MR. LEVI: Yes. You could have done on the basis of the money you're going to spend - $16 million...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Yes, $16 million. Oh, there he is. Mr. Chairman....

[ Page 2930 ]

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, it's important that you ask that member for Burnaby....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could those members get along over there, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's pay attention to the member who has the floor.

MR. LEVI: Just to go back to the Berger report: you do have an opportunity, Mr. Attorney-General, and I know that you are, sometime in this session, going to bring in some legislation in which you're going to resolve the whole of the juvenile problem and we'll have something to say about that when it comes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: 14o, not all.

MR. LEVI: No, not all the problems. It's an amazing thing about the juvenile problem in this province, that all through the reign of the NDP government it was an incredible problem. On December I I it ceased - no more juvenile problems that anybody talks about.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Baloney.

MR. LEVI: Why doesn't anybody talk about juvenile problems today?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): We're doing something about it.

MR. LEVI: Oh, you're doing something about it. You haven't done a thing about it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have so!

MR. LEVI: You haven't done a thing about it!

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You're not doing something about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're racing Billy the Kid and Willy the Juvenile.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, in committee everyone has opportunity to speak, but they must stand in their place and be recognized.

MR. LEVI: That's right, Mr. Chairman.

I'll sit down, but I would like the Attorney-General to comment on that principle that I've been trying to lay out about the maintenance payment and the right of the family, in terms of the maintenance order, to have first call on the income of the person whom the order is made against.

That's a very important principle because otherwise the Minister of Human Resources will continue to pay out large amounts of money because they can't get their husbands to pay. It's no good. The problem that he has is that he's got to go chase people and the chase is a~ incredible problem - it's very expensive. You know, sometimes it becomes very difficult. But you do have situations where you find individuals who do have the assets and who do have the income and yet it's the last thing that comes to their minds.

Frankly, in terms of maintenance payments, the only successful and practical way to deal with maintenance payments is not through court orders -a court order is all right - but should really be done through the income tax system. I think it's ludicrous for us to have a whole system where we have to go around chasing people to pay.

Now again, I don't think there are a large number of people, but that should be part of that kind of system. Perhaps the Attorney-General might want to comment on that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just in response to that question, there is probably inherent jurisdiction within the courts insofar as an abusive process is concerned, but I think that they're loath to do it because they have suppliants appearing in front of them, and it's their job to handle the case as it comes before them.

Dealing with the question that you have raised regarding an individual with a large income, it could well be - and I don't know the facts - that perhaps some of those assets are already charged or have encumbrances against them, and that those assets are utilized for the purposes of gaining his income. So if he does not pay the encumbrances and the assets which can produce his income he doesn't have any income, and we're right back, unfortunately, "renovating" to square one.

The other point: yes, I do think that there should be a paramountcy, subject to, again, reasonable exception, perhaps along the lines that I've suggested of approach to the call on income and, indeed, for the maintenance of a spouse or a child. In the Act which we're proposing you'll see a highly improved form of attachment proceedings than has existed before in the province, and I think a far more direct route to the point that you have indicated in the House this afternoon.

[ Page 2931 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In due course. I've covered a lot already; I can't do everything in one day.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I didn't take the opportunity yesterday to express my personal appreciation of the work of Mr. Vickers while he's been a Deputy Attorney-General, and at this time I would like to add my personal appreciation of the particularly co-operative spirit which he showed and the way in which he always took trouble to respond to approaches by this MLA on seeking information. I think that he's done a tremendous job as Deputy Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division! (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: I wish to raise two main points at this time, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General to comment on what was, I think, a very shattering decision in the Victoria court on June 10 regarding the fallibility of the breathalyser.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, there's nothing under appeal about this; the case was dismissed. But regardless of the particular case, I want to make it very plain, Mr. Chairman, that I'm thoroughly in support of efforts to deal with drinking driving and the consequences.

I think it was summed up in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in the January edition where the writer, who is a forensic scientist, made the statement: "In the law-science relationship it is inconceivable that recognizably faulty science should be employed to bolster good law." I think that's a very apt way to express the fact that in this particular trial the pathologist, Dr. Thornton, pointed out three very fundamental ways in which the breathalyser test, if you'll pardon the expression, wasn't really worth a damn, and if necessary we can go into the details. But such basic physical matters as the fact that the oxidizing agent in the breathalyser had not been changed for 18 months.... The pathologist testified that its particular efficiency within the machine renders it absolutely useless after six months.

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is the Borkenstein?

MR. WALLACE: Yes.

The other simple fact that made the test completely invalid was that the mouthpiece was not changed between the first and second sample. There are very simple physics involved there....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Does that mean he needed a new lawyer?

MR. WALLACE: No, this gentleman had a very effective lawyer, I assure you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Aw, I'm pulling your leg! This mouthpiece wasn't changed between the first and second sample!

MR. WALLACE: The second sample, in other words contained contaminants from the first sample. It was also pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that with these faulty techniques particles of food could be involved in the breath sample, which would dramatically boost the result by several milligrams.

The other scientific fact that's been stressed is that the excretion of alcohol by human beings varies enormously, by as much as 300 per cent between one human being and the next.

Now as I said earlier on, Mr. Chairman, I have no wish but to support the Attorney-General's attempt to deal with drinking drivers. But I think that there are two very important factors involved here, and that is, first of all, the right of the individual to be assured that the kind of evidence being used against him is scientifically valid. Surely they can't ask any more or less than that where the individual on trial might suffer very substantial penalty involving his livelihood, for example.

The second factor I'd like to ask the Attorney-General is....

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, I missed your question, sir.

MR. WALLACE: The first question is the right of the individual to be assured that any scientific techniques used to provide evidence against them should surely be reliable inasmuch as they are scientific evidence. It's one thing to interpret an opinion, or to give evidence of what one sees or hears, but here we're dealing with something which basically is a scientific procedure where the elements involved in the test can be quantified and should be capable of being entirely accurate. I think the individual in society today is surely entitled to that. I've just quickly described reasons why one could suspect that much of the testing which is done may be invalidated for the reasons I mentioned.

The second point is: do we want cases. ? We're talking about how busy our courts are; they're plugged up with many cases. Do we want policemen, peace officers, judges and many people to be put to the expense and trouble of going to court where in the first instance some of the basic evidence to be presented can be challenged in the way that I've mentioned? I wonder if the minister could comment on these two points.

I guess the third point is that if we're to reduce the reading to 0.05 in order to justify 24-hour

[ Page 2932 ]

suspensions, and when we learn that there's a 15 per cent margin of error in the machine, with the level of reading taken along with the margin of error you're getting rather low in the reading at which people are going to be suspended. Now maybe that's not a bad thing, but the important thing at the moment is the campaign to inform the public as to what the Attorney-General's goals are in regard to dealing with drinking-driving and the various groundrules; and guidelines which will determine when a person might be suspended for 24 hours or charged with a more serious offence.

When you get down to 0.05 per cent and take into consideration those other deficiencies of the test, I wonder if the minister would care to comment as to whether the ultimate goal is to say that if you have any presence of alcohol in your breath or blood, legislation should provide for a suspension.

Pretty soon, if you keep lowering the level that renders you subject to suspension and if you don't have efficient scientific equipment to do the testing, then the whole matter is to become a jungle of confusion, with more and more cases being contested in court and more and more cases being thrown out, perhaps, because of the inadequate equipment. I foresee that unless this situation is recognized at the time the minister is suggesting this new lower reading as an indicator, we may find ourselves in a year or two with the well-motivated attempt to tighten up on the drinking-driving law to be self-defeating. Instead of trying to minimize the congestion in our courtrooms, you may be providing new and more stringent regulations which not only clog up the courts to a greater degree but cannot be enforced anyway for the reasons I've mentioned. I wonder if the minister might care to comment on that.

The other subject I'd like to ask the Attorney-General about is wiretapping. There is, at the present time, Bill C-51 before the federal House. With the recent CBC documentary, it's obvious that there is going to be a great deal of pressure exerted by the federal government to expand the provisions of wiretapping. One of the quotations, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like to read from the federal Hansard of June 13 is by Mr. Basford. He stated:

It is as a result of the recommendations of and the consultations with the 10 provincial Attorneys-General representing all parties in Canada that we proposed in this House changes in the wiretap law.

First of all, I would like to ask the minister if he is completely in support of the new proposals on wiretapping which are before the federal House and which the federal minister responsible for the bill says have been introduced on the basis of recommendations by the 10 provincial Attorneys-General.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British Columbia should know the tremendous ramifications of this new proposed wiretapping law and its provisions and the degree to which it further endangers the invasion of privacy of any or all of us. I want a clear and unequivocal answer from the Attorney- General as to whether he supports these recommendations. In the first place, it used to be a person who had his phone tapped had to be notified within 90 days of completion of the tap.

Mr. Chairman, you may not believe it, but this bill now suggests that you may not be notified until up to three years. Three years! And Mr. Basford is trying to make it palatable by saying that the original recommendation was five years! Why have any notification at all? Admittedly, the extension to three years is on application to a judge. But after all, the wiretapping in the first place is the result of police signing an affidavit and going to a judge and asking to tap your phone in the first place. So it's really minimal protection to suggest: "Let's not get worried about this three-year period, because it can only be extended up to three years on the agreement of a judge."

Another aspect of wiretapping which I think we should all waken up and think about is that there can be no authority to intercept a client's conversation with his lawyer unless there is evidence before a judge that the lawyer himself is involved in the commission of a crime. There are two parts to that problem. Even if there is some evidence, it really means that regardless of that one client talking to the lawyer suspected himself of being involved in a crime, what about all the other conversations between other clients and that same lawyer?

I don't care how they embroider this whole situation, Mr. Chairman. We're opening up a very dangerous can of worms in regard to the privacy of many individuals in this country. I think Mr. Eldon Woolliams, one of our MPs in Ottawa, put it very well. He said:

"When we give law authorities more power, we are assuring the erosion of freedom and liberty of the subject as to his or her privacy and we are creating a new era of further invasion of privacy and assuring a greater authoritarian state."

Another aspect of this wiretapping legislation, Mr. Chairman, that should bother us all is the fact that any evidence obtained directly or indirectly as the result of an interception, regardless of whether or not the private communication is inadmissible, becomes admissible. In other words, even an illegal way of obtaining evidence can make that evidence admissible in court. Now just how far are we going in the legitimate concern of trying to deal with organized crime?

MR. LAUK: It doesn't deal with it.

[ Page 2933 ]

MR. WALLACE: I'm coming to that; I'm just making my case.

MR. LAUK: Sorry. Carry on, counsel!

MR. WALLACE: As with the drunken driving problem, I'm as eager as the next person to find better ways and more efficient ways of dealing with organized crime. But it is a fact, Mr. Chairman, that if this government is asking the federal government to pass this Bill C-5 1, let us know what the contents are.

One of the contents states that a judge or a magistrate may receive in evidence an illegal private communication "if he deems it to be relevant to a matter at issue in the proceedings." That's section 178 of the new bill. The authorization is to be extended from 30 days to 60 days. It used to be that at the expiry of 30 days of wiretapping, that was the maximum other than going back before the judge for an extension. Now it is suggested that all of the authorizations to wiretap can initially be for a period of 60 days.

This debate has gone on at some great length in the House of Commons. I think it's interesting to quote from one of the American judges, Judge Brandeis, who talked about the importance of not only respect for the law, but having the upholders of the law themselves live up to the law. I just pointed out that evidence that has been obtained illegally through an interception can be admissible in court. Judge Brandeis said:

"If the government becomes a lawbreaker it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means, to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal, would bring terrible retribution."

The date isn't stated as to when Justice Brandeis made that statement but we've certainly seen in the case of the American nation the way in which the highest officers of in the country themselves obstructed justice and breached the law with such drastic and calamitous ramifications for that country and certainly for citizens who previously thought that at least those upholding the law would respect the law.

We've got examples right on our own doorstep this very month, Mr. Chairman, where the most senior members of the RCMP have now acknowledged that they participated in a breach of the law, making the excuse that the end justifies the means - that there was some real danger of criminal acts being carried out by others - and in order to become knowledgeable about them and perhaps prevent them, they themselves were prepared to break the law by something of great significance - entering and searching private premises without a search warrant.

I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Basford at the federal level is trying to justify this expansion of wiretapping by saying that it would help to deal with organized crime. I want to quote the statistics very quickly for the year 1976-77. Would you believe that 1,062 people were arrested whose identity became known to a peace officer as a result of an interception under these authorizations? And would you believe that the number of criminal proceedings commenced by the Solicitor-General of Canada in which these communications obtained by wiretappings were adduced in evidence was exactly 13?

MR. GIBSON: What's your reason?

MR. WALLACE: The Liberal leader wonders the reason for that. I have, in fairness, to say that in a later date in Hansard, it is obvious that all the cases which were first embarked upon in 1976 were not terminated by the time the annual report was handed down. Nevertheless, even if we assume that the number 13 is even doubled or tripled out of the original 1,026 arrests, one really has to ask how valid and useful wiretapping is. Later in the same debate, other members of the House of Commons made the same point.

I would like to refer to the research that was done by one of the members of the House, John Gilbert, who is an NDP member. He pointed out that former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsey Clark opposed electronic surveillance. He worked very closely with Robert Kennedy who, as we all recall, was a very active and energetic Attorney-General who tried to take on organized crime. Before the justice and legal affairs committee in the United States, Mr. Ramsey Clark pointed out that "wiretapping was not used between 1966 and 1969, a period when indictments against the members of organized crime tripled." Ramsey Clark made the statement that "wiretapping is a wasteful and inefficient means of investigation and is not effective against organized crime." Clark also said: "Electronic surveillance encourages not investigation but just sitting and waiting for something to happen." Of course, the same former Attorney-General gave examples of how the wiretapping of Martin Luther King was later used to smear that man's reputation. I might say also, Mr. Chairman, there is a ban on wiretapping in the state of Illinois and yet they have had some remarkable success in dealing with organized crime.

While it is clearly everybody's concern in Canada that we must deal with organized crime, we have to look at the balance that is involved here and the dangers of expanding wiretapping which is, in my mind, a most dangerous and pernicious way of

[ Page 2934 ]

endangering the right and the freedom of each and every one of us to privacy. However one may feel about the need to deal with the very serious consequences of organized crime, there are millions of other people in this country who have no wish to have their right to privacy invaded with all the risks that I've tried to outline briefly in these comments. Above all that, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't really seem to make much of a dent in organized crime anyway. I'm most alarmed that the federal Minister of Justice - and I won't take the time of the House to quote him from Hansard - has on several occasions been quoted in recent weeks in the federal House as saying that the reason the extension of wiretapping provisions is needed is to deal with organized crime.

I would like the minister to give me a very clear answer as to whether he is in favour of extending the provisions of wiretapping in the way which I've mentioned, according to the provisions of Bill C-5 1, 1, for one, think that the risks to many innocent individuals of having their privacy invaded with the danger of all kinds of consequences - not the least of which might well be blackmail - have not been justified in light of the obvious lack of success which wiretapping has produced in relation to organized crime.

In turn it seems to be the main justification that our federal government uses to expand the provisions, Yet right at the start of Mr. Basford's statement in introducing the bill on May 11 in Hansard he makes it very plain that he is doing so at the recommendation and after consultation with all 10 provincial Attorneys-General. I would like to know if this Attorney-General fully supports the provisions of Bill C-5 1. If he doesn't fully support it, can he tell us the parts that he would prefer to see deleted?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member, Mr. Chairman, was talking about the Bourkenstein breathalyser and the right of an individual to be assured that the scientific evidence is correct. I would respectfully suggest that the person who will eventually make that determination is, of course, the court.

In the case you've cited, there is a very classic example of the court properly concluding in favour of the accused. It should, if there's a piece of equipment that is not as perfect as it should be. My understanding, Mr. Member, is that it is the best equipment that's available. Whether science will continue to leave it in that kind of a situation, that of course I do not know. There are areas wherein there can be failure in utilizing the machine, and those matters are matters that do come before the court periodically. I think that the accused people certainly receive every opportunity of a proper defence.

Dealing with this business of the 0.05, which you also referred to during your discussion, I would commend all members of the House to an editorial in The Province newspaper on June 9. I'll just read a short excerpt from it which I think very correctly and fairly sums up the position of the government insofar as its present consideration to a proposed amendment is concerned. It says this:

"The provincial government's proposal is not aimed at changing or challenging the Criminal Code, which is federal jurisdiction, but improving safety on the road, which is a provincial jurisdiction.

"The intention is not to have more impaired driving charges laid but to get more drinking drivers off the highway. Reduction to the 0.05 level will be under the Motor-vehicle Act. . ."

It's regulatory, you see, and will strengthen the roadside suspension system.

". . under this system, an officer may ask a driver to give up his licence for 24 hours, forcing the driver to find some other safer way home and then pick up his car the next day. It's a good solution because it achieves greater road safety without cluttering the courts with more charges. The driver can refuse to give up his licence, but then he must have a breathalyser test. Under the new proposal, he must automatically surrender his licence if the reading is above 0.05. Until now, the only alcohol level that the policeman could have used has been the 0.08 in the Criminal Code." Well, I'd say that since this programme has been stated by the government we've received a number of suggestions and observations from interested citizens in the province, and I'd still welcome them. Some people have said that any liquor at all on the road -one drink - and that's it. You should not be permitted to drive. Other people have suggested that there should be points given for people who are drinking and driving, irrespective of the amount. Of course, when we're talking about impaired driving and tolerance levels, the breathalyser, save and except fading to blow, is just one element of evidence. When, of course, evidence is given of the condition. . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: But it's pretty important.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, it's very important. I agree with you. It's one portion of the evidence. The sobriety of the individual at the time and his capacity to physically manage himself are all matters that are taken into account as well.

Now dealing with the electronic surveillance bill that is before the House, the highlights of the bill are contained here in a couple of pages. I'd just like to read them to you. This is before the federal House:

"The proposed legislation contains several changes designed to increase the effectiveness of police use of electronic surveillance in their

[ Page 2935 ]

fight against crime while, at the same time, maintaining the fundamental protection of the individual's right to privacy and the sanctity of a client's communication with their lawyers. Under the proposed changes, no authorizations can be granted to intercept communications at a lawyer's office or other place where he communicates with clients unless the lawyer, or a member of his family or office, is suspected of being involved in an offence.

"Guidelines to this effect were issued by the Solicit or-General earlier this year."

I don't have a copy of those guidelines with me, but they are available.

"Courts will be empowered to grant an authorization to intercept communications in relation to any offence under a federal statute punishable by five years' imprisonment or more, together with the offences of bookmaking, smuggling, and other offences relating to organized crime. Court authorizations for interceptions will be valid for 60 rather than 30 days. The actual transcript of an unauthorized surveillance will not be accepted as evidence, but evidence arising from the information contained in the transcript can be admitted.

"Where the interests of justice so warrant, the courts will be empowered to extend the notification period, after which notice of an interception must be given to the person whose communication is intercepted, from 90 days to a period not exceeding three years."

Now it is my understanding, Mr. Member, not only during the time that I have been in office, but prior to that, that it has been somewhat the universal position of Attorneys-General in Canada that they are in favour of wiretapping for the purposes of fighting crime and assisting the law enforcement agencies. That position has not altered. I think really the tack that has to be taken in the society is: do we subscribe to it within defined perimeters or do we not subscribe to it? Now in the past it was pretty well open-ended in the country and it was unbridled until such time as there were some regulations coming in. You cited the situation of another area where it wasn't permitted at all.

Well, it would seem to me that at this point in time, in view of the fact of the serious encroachments that are being faced on this continent, I suppose -not only just in Canada and certainly not only just in the province of British Columbia, but the problems that are being faced within and without the continent vis-à-vis organized crime - there is a necessity to be able to combat that at the same level of expertise, intelligence and scientific development that is available to them. Otherwise I think we're just going to be swatting at flies, and the object, of course, is to do much more than that. I'm quite sure it is a matter that will be of continuing discussion at various conferences as they're called.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back for a few minutes to the subject of legal aid, but I wonder if I would be allowed to wait until the Attorney- General returns?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult to direct either remarks or questions to the Attorney-General when he isn't here. I just wonder whether....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that someone perhaps would maybe take notes while you're speaking.

On a point of order, the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General just left for a moment. He said as he left he'd be right back; he had an urgent call.

MR. LEA: I know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps someone will take notes while the member for; Prince Rupert continues.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back to the legal-aid programme and point out to the government that on page 32 of the Legal Services Commission first report, March, 1976, under "recommendations, " as I understand it the Attorney-General has put forward a view that people who are second-time offenders should not be entitled to legal aid. People who have been found guilty of an offence the second time up, no matter what the charge, should not be eligible for legal aid, according to the government's own commission and its recommendations on page 32.

I'd like to read into the record part of these recommendations. It says:

"The Legal Services Commission has made certain recommendations to the Attorney-General for the future management of legal aid tariffs and the handling of these costly conspiracy and trafficking cases.

"Recommendation (1) is that sufficient funds be made available so that legal aid can continue to be offered to all those eligible persons charged with offences under federal and provincial statutes. It is the commission's

[ Page 2936 ]

view that all persons charged with crimes be provided legal aid if they are financially eligible. We find it unacceptable to try to sort out cases ahead of time."

There's more, but that's the point I wanted to raise.

In my opinion, if a person has been found guilty of one offence and then charged with another offence and for government to say to that person, "I'm sorry, but you've been found guilty before, so even on this new charge - of which you may be innocent because you haven't had your day in court - you will go to court with no defence, with no lawyer at your side to defend you, " that in itself is wrong. But I would like to examine what possible motives could bring either a government or an individual minister to consider saying that a person who is charged with a second offence is not entitled to legal aid.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is pure and simple class action by the privileged few against the impoverished or those who can't afford - pure and simple. If you're going to say to a person in our society who can't afford, "You've committed one offence; you'll be able to go to court with a lawyer; but when you're charged with committing another offence, I'm sorry, you can't have it, " then we have to say the same things to those people who can afford - the sons of millionaires, millionaires themselves. They can then say: "I can commit as many offences as I want because I can afford to have somebody beside me who has legal training to plead my case when I get to court." I believe that it is class action. I believe that it's very easy for some people to consider that those people who are in the privileged class have certain privileges in every respect, even before the law.

That's what this amounts to if the Attorney-General's view was carried out. I know that this crosses party lines. I know that there are people in the Social Credit Party who wouldn't agree that because~ 'you're poor you don't get the same break as those who are rich, under the law. That's exactly what the Attorney-General is suggesting, that people who are rich can go to court as many times as they are charged with an offence and have legal help to fight their case, but those who are poor have one kick at the kitty and next time you're on your own. I don't think that that's the kind of society which democracy is based on.

I don't believe that people who happen to be privileged in our society by having more money than others - no matter how they got their money, whether it was an inheritance or whether they earned it - should have any right before the law over people who are impoverished or can't afford to go to court with adequate defence through a lawyer.

So I see this as a far more sinister approach than first meets the eye. You can argue the case from strictly technical things - that everybody who goes to court should have legal aid; but it's more than that.

What it is is the privileged telling those who are not privileged in our society that you are not equal before the law. When we have the Attorney-General, the person in a cabinet who is sworn in to defend the rights of citizens, coming out and saying that he actually believes that the privileged should have more right before the law than the impoverished, then I think all British Columbians should hang their heads in shame that an Attorney-General would even suggest such a move.

But I can understand why the Attorney-General has come to the conclusion he has come to, because he is part of that privileged class. I don't think he even thought it out. I would ask the Attorney-General to reconsider, to examine his motives, to examine his own background and examine why he would come to the conclusion that privileged people in our society through money have more right before the law than those who have no money or very little.

I really would like to hear the Attorney-General explain to this House what kind of reasoning process went on in his own mind that would lead him to conclude that he is going to bolster in our society a belief that is already common - that those who have have special privileges in our society, especially before the law and in the court rooms of our society.... Many people now believe that, rightly or wrongly. But for the Attorney-General to put that kind of proposition forward only bolsters the belief that we have an inequitable society under the law. It only makes people more disrespectful of the law. It makes people say: "Why should 1, as an impoverished person in our society, pay any attention to the laws whatsoever, because I know I'm not going to get an even shake because the privileged few are in charge of our government and in charge of the laws that will affect our courts?"

I think it's wrong, and I think the Attorney-General owes the people of this province, regardless of political persuasion, an explanation not only of the conclusion he's come to but the thought process that led him to make that conclusion. I can only surmise that it is because he is part of the privileged class that he can't see any further than that. He cannot or he wouldn't have come to that conclusion.

But maybe the Attorney-General came to that conclusion out of dollars and cents, out of economics. Hang justice if we can save a few bucks. Maybe he came to it because he wants to save a few bucks at the cost of justice or maybe he came to it because he is part of the privileged few and can't see beyond it. If he came to it because of cost, it's unpardonable. If he came to it because he can't see any further than his own privileged class, then it's unforgivable. I can't see how he came to that conclusion other than those two. I would very much

[ Page 2937 ]

like the Attorney-General to explain to us how he came to his conclusion that people who are impoverished shouldn't have the same right in our courts as those who come from the privileged class of money.

MR. LAUK: Well, I think that I'd like to follow up some of the words of the member for Prince Rupert.

The hon. Attorney-General, when he opened his estimates, suggested that he was a tiger with the Treasury Board. Well, when I look at some of the more essential....

HON. MR. GARDOM: I quoted him.

MR. LAUK: I know you quoted him, but you claimed that you were a tiger before your Treasury Board. I looked at the essential items - that is to say, those items in the Attorney-General's estimates that refer to those areas that are essential for the proper administration of justice in this province. I think that the Attorney-General was more like a pussycat than a tiger - even a little white mouse - when it comes to legal aid.

What was it that's often been quoted in this chamber? "The law in its infinite majesty allows the right to a rich or poor man alike to sleep under the Georgia Viaduct." I think that's what. the Attorney-General's policy. . .

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, that's sort of Alex Macdonald via Jim Lorimer and Voltaire and ...

AN HON. MEMBER: ... Lauk.

MR. LAUK: ... and so on.

The first step in rehabilitation of a guilty man is a fair trial. An essential ingredient for the respect of our society is its law, and respect for that law is a fair trial to all. And a fair trial is impossible to those who cannot afford counsel.

When I think of the expenditures that this government is making, Mr. Chairman . . .. It is unfortunate that the Attorney-General doesn't listen, and I'll tell you why he doesn't listen - the administration of justice does not get votes. The bleeding of the disabled from what's rightfully theirs is. . . . They don't have to worry about losing votes; they don't have to worry about cutting back on legal aid and the administration of justice, because to do those things properly does not get votes. We're back to the old days when for 20 years in this province underpaid, overworked staff in our court system and jails that were overcrowded with ill-trained and underpaid staff were the rule, not the exception, in this province. He stood on this side with the other

Liberal members - the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and other Liberal members - and condemned that former administration for their niggardly outlook in terms of the administration of justice.

We did not have legal aid in this province, Mr. Chairman. It was brought about by the Bar Society themselves. The lawyers were disgusted; they brought about their own legal-aid system. It was only through begging, nagging and political action that a tiny little door was opened and legal aid was finally brought to this province in the middle '60s in a very mild form. It was slowly increased.

I heard the Attorney-General last session when he was under criticism for cutting back on legal aid. What did he say? He started giving me the figures. "In 1960 the cost to the province of legal aid was zero; in 1965 it increased to a fantastic amount, something like 400 per cent; then in 1969 another 1,000 per cent and so on." What nonsense!

That's not caused by inflation or increased costs at all. It's caused by increased availability of legal aid, and he knows that. It's a false and silly argument to say that the costs of legal aid are getting out of hand. We have not got complete and proper legal aid in this province. I would think that a person, particularly of the Attorney-General's background, who claims to have this so-called liberal-democratic approach to the administration of justice, would be the first to demand an expansive legal-aid programme in this great province and not allow the people who are of low and moderate income to go without legal counsel before the courts of this land.

MR. LEA: He always says good morning to the servants; he's a Liberal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver-Centre is trying to make a speech.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it's essential that the Attorney-General understand this issue. Was he, for all those years in this Legislature, just mouthing words?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll read the agreement to you.

MR. LAUK: Don't read me the agreement! I've read the agreement, and for you to say that after all these years. . . ! There are people in the courts now who are not receiving lawyers. During the Barrett administration all of those people had counsel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LAUK: They are not receiving lawyers. There are people who are going to jail. There are line-ups of

[ Page 2938 ]

Indians throughout this province. Indians comprise the greater percentage of our penal institutions and they are there because they don't have lawyers.

MR. BARRETT: What about the great speeches you used to make about the Indian rights?

MR. LAUK: And you're giving me a bottom-line accounting? Sure it doesn't get votes!

MR. BARRETT: Of all guys!

MR. LAUK: But what is it that was in the first report of your administration? The one thing that the Attorney-General is is that he's not the politician in cabinet. He is the chief law officer in this province. He is the protector of the laws, and he is the protector of justice in this province and in the administration of it. He should not be influenced by political priorities or financial priorities that will affect equal justice in this province.

MR. BARRETT: Gracie got to you, too, huh?

MR. LAUK: And the maxim, "let right be done though the heavens may fall, " must never be forgotten. But the Attorney-General has forgotten so quickly because it's politically expedient, because the issue is never broadly understood by the public.

There's only a handful of people who run across the courts and who are charged with offences. The Attorney-General treats the legal-aid programme, by some of his comments, by assuming that people who are charged are guilty.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right!

MR. LAUK: He's saying: "Well, if the police charged them they must have some evidence."

MR. BARRETT: It you're convicted of being a Liberal and then you're accused of being a Socred, you don't get legal aid.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope that these estimates go on for a little while because legal aid is only one aspect. It's one of the most critical and I've a lot more to say about it.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

CORRECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Corrections Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 55 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tables the annual report, ending March 31 1977, of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.