[ Page 2963 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Community Resources Board Amendment Act (Bill 65) Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 2963

Land Titles Act (Bill 62) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2966

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Bill 64) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2967

Execution Amendment Act (Bill 60) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2967

Oral questions

Queen Charlotte Fisheries closure. Mr. Gibson –– 2967

Legislation Affecting Vancouver Resources Board. Ms. Brown –– 2968

Conflict of interest in ALR rezoning application. Mrs. Wallace –– 2969

Proposed tax on energy to finance public transit. Mr. Wallace –– 2969

Appointment of J. Henry Schroeder and Co. Mr. Levi –– 2969

Possible loss of Pharmacare benefits. Ms. Brown –– 2970

Matter of urgent public importance

Closures in fisheries industry. Mr. Lea –– 2970

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 59.

Mr Macdonald –– 2971

Hon. Mr Gardom –– 2972

Mr. Macdonald –– 2973

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2974

Ms. Brown –– 2974

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2975

Mr. Loewen –– 2977

Mr. Cocke –– 2978

Mr. Wallace –– 2978

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2981

Mr. Macdonald –– 2982

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2983

Mr. Gibson –– 2983

Mr. Lauk –– 2986

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2988

Mr. Gibson –– 2988

Mr. Nicolson –– 2989

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2992

Mr. Kerster –– 2993

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2993

Mrs. Wallace –– 2994

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2995

Mr. Lauk –– 2995

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today and in the precincts is a delegation of people from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union which met earlier this morning with a number of members of cabinet. They have brought to our attention information about the possible closure of the major cannery in my constituency of Richmond, which was first relayed to us last week. Many of those persons who were visiting the buildings today are indeed from the constituency of Richmond. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, also in the gallery today are members of a delegation from the Cowichan area who are here on behalf of the Cowichan regional branch of the Farmland Defence League. They are here to present a brief to the Premier and to the Minister of the Environment in connection with a 70-acre piece of land which is being appealed to be removed from the ALR. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon we have one of the world's most honoured artists who has entertained millions on stage and television. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to honour an outstanding professional, Mr. Victor Borge, who is accompanied by Mr. Hugh Pickett, a good friend from Vancouver.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the introduction of Victor Borge, which is very appropriate coming from the Provincial Secretary, because Victor Borge is the man who invented the cure for which there is no disease. (Laughter.)

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today we have a group of youngsters from the Jericho Hill School for the blind along with their teachers, Ms. Evans, Ms. Crockford and the Kelaher clan, which includes one teacher and three volunteers. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): We are proud to have in the gallery today representatives and friends of the Pacific Life Community and of those people who join with us in agreeing that the proposed Trident base in Bangor, Washington, -is madness. They are here waiting patiently for the government to call the anti-Trident resolution. They are Reverend and Mrs. Crane, Mr. Barr, Mrs. Bergbusch, Miss Weaver, Reverend Allan, Mr. Linfield, Mrs. Bennett, Mrs. Durant, Reverend Ross and Mrs. Philips. They are all members of the Victoria Presbytery of the United Church of Canada.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): In the gallery today we have a charming young lady from Prince George, Miss Lee Ongman, who has just recently completed her studies at the UBC law school and will be going into articling this summer. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the mayor of the city of Kelowna accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Hindle, and also the city administrator for the city of Kelowna, the city which is one part of my constituency of South Okanagan. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I don't get too many guests, but today I have two guests I'd like to introduce to the House. One is the mayor of the city of Port Coquitlam, a prominent British Columbia citizen, Mayor Jack Campbell. I think he's in the gallery. The other is a former member of the Motor Carrier Commission, Mr. Bill Franklin. He and his guests are in the gallery.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, also in the gallery today are seven members of a committee which did an outstanding report for the Vancouver Board of Parks and Public Recreation concerning access for handicapped to public buildings and community centres. They are led by Deirdre Poyner, who is with them today, and they are here to discuss handicapped access to public buildings. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES BOARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave not granted.

[ Page 2964 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I heard several noes, hon. minister. There is another procedure for introducing message bills.

MR. BARRETT: Help him, Walter. Help him!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, these efficient administrators!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

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

MR. BARRETT: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This bill is now in committee and we should, by right, have a copy of the bill on the desk of every member of the House before we proceed with committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Oh, you are denying us our rights to see the bill in committee? (Laughter.) Oh yes, you want to play games with the rules. No sir, don't play games with the rules. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The practice of the House during this procedure is not to distribute the copy of the bill. However, perhaps we could have some guidance by the committee,

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's on a point of order, not guidance from the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Distribution will take place immediately following this procedure.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, it is practice to distribute the bill before committee, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But not during this procedure, Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Are you making a ruling, Mr. Chairman? Under what authority?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The distribution of the bill will take place after the introduction of the bill, not during this procedure.

MR. BARRETT: Under what authority?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This has been the normal practice of the House and to change that practice would establish a precedent.

MR. BARRETT: Since when?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is permissible, in committee consideration on the introduction of this bill, to discuss and debate the wisdom of the introduction and the need for introduction of this bill. On the basis of considering that need, it is only feasible and logical that one must know what they're discussing, either in respect to a statement from the minister explaining the bill or by having access to a copy of the bill.

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your point is well taken. However, I must remind all members of the House that this is not a debatable motion and, therefore, we must proceed to the procedure.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm just seeking guidance from you, this being a rather unusual procedure and situation. We are in committee. I wonder if you can explain, sir, what we are doing in committee. (Laughter.)

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Do you want us to explain why you're here?

MR. GIBSON: I sometimes wonder, Don.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You can't explain why you're here. You can't recall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. In answer to the hon. member's question, asking why we are in committee at this time, we are waiting for the introduction of the bill. In this procedure the bill will be introduced in due time. It's not a debatable motion, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Continuing that point of order or procedure, Mr. Chairman, are we to expect, then, that the minister will introduce the bill into the committee or is he asking leave for the bill to be introduced into the House? I'm just trying to ascertain the exact nature of the business that the committee is considering.

[ Page 2965 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think the member was present in the House when leave was denied. We are now in committee following this procedure of introducing this bill. It's not a debatable motion.

MR. GIBSON: Well, is there any motion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, recommending introduction of the bill.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suggest strongly, now that we have a resolution before the House, that we can debate the advisability of the committee rising, reporting....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No! No!

MR. COCKE: Oh, it's not debatable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Hon. member, it is not a debatable motion.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on what basis? What rule?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one moment, please. Hon. member for New Westminster, standing order 45 will give you a list of motions that are debatable. The motion in this procedure is not among them. This is not a debatable motion. Standing order 45 is the authority, and the practice of the House has underscored that authority.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order, I refer the Chairman to standing order 45, paragraph l (k) . These are motions that can be debated.

"And such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business. . . ."

Therefore Mr. Chairman, this motion is debatable on two grounds: on the first ground, "made upon routine proceedings"; and on the second ground, "the management of its business." Both under sub-paragraph (K) are debatable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, clearly the procedure which we are following now is not mentioned in section (k) and, by practice of this House over the years, this motion is clearly not debatable. I so rule.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, are we to understand that this travesty is going to take place on the floor of this House and that we are not going to have an opportunity to discuss it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Is that what we are to understand, Mr. Chairman . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ... that he's going to punish the poor people in this province and we're not going to have an opportunity to discuss it?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, may I remind all Hon. members of this House that a point of order must be a legitimate point of order? The authorities clearly describe those points of order which are not points of order and call them "fraudulent." The fraudulent use of a point of order is not a matter to be taken lightly in this House. As a matter of fact, the authorities clearly provide that it is a matter of gross disorder and members utilizing this method can be named. That gives just a little bit of an idea of how weighty is the disorder caused by using points of order fraudulently. I decry the use in this House.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that because of the rules of this House and in this committee - which are good rules - which provide that every member does not impugn improper conduct on the part of any given member, that the Chairman is relieved of any such obligation as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I wish to point out that your use of the word "fraudulent" in respect to the first member for Vancouver-Burrard is not parliamentary and should not emit from the mouth of the Chairman of the Committee.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The word "fraudulent" is not my word; the word "fraudulent" is that word which is found in the authorities.

MR. LAUK: It's not your word but you used it.

[ Page 2966 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. It could be considered an attack on the Chair, but I will not press the matter.

Interjections.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): The rules of this House clearly state that to impugn a wrongdoing on behalf of any member of the House is to impugn a wrongdoing on behalf of all members of the House. That which is offensive to one is offensive to all, and I am offended by this impugning of wrongdoing to the first member for Vancouver-Burrard. I feel that it should be withdrawn. If we're going to get back some sort of a balance in this House then there has to be some give and take, and I do submit that that even includes the Chair.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): On a point of order, I respectfully draw to the attention of the House that the first procedure that was utilized by the Minister of Human Resources was the one recommended by former Speaker Dowding. It was the accepted procedure in this House. If that is not intended to be followed the House may follow the second procedure, which we are now doing. I think it's a good time to get along with the business of the people.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, there is no doubt that the Chair must make rulings, and there is no question that the House has a choice to either agree or disagree with the Chairperson's rulings.

However, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you, under standing rule 39, to withdraw the statement "fraudulent."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. In using the word "fraudulent, " I was citing from page 430 - by the way, citing from memory, which makes it nonetheless important - of the 18th edition of May in which a previous Deputy Speaker made this observation:" 'When the hon. member who is speaking refuses to give way, thinks that the only way that they can get their word in is by raising a point of order, ' " this, in his opinion, constitutes a fraudulent point of order and should be stopped. That is recorded in the House of Commons debates, 1951-52, page 503. Therefore the use was strictly a citation from our authorities.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request for standing rule 39. I accept your present interpretation.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for supporting the Chair.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 32

NAYS - 16

Mr. King requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported that Bill 65 be introduced now, further reported a division took place while in committee.

Leave granted for the division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 65, Community Resources Boards 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 House after today.

LAND TITLES ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Land Titles Act.

Bill 62 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 2967 ]

CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF

PROPERTY ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.

Bill 64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EXECUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

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

Bill 60 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I raised an issue on several days that several ministers have been absent, I wish to note that the situation has improved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, was that supposed to be a point of order?

MR. LAUK: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't say point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Then in what respect did you seek to gain the floor?

MR. LAUK: To make that statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If in fact you sought to gain the floor to make a statement, you should have so said.

MR. LAUK: That may be a good point. Do I have to withdraw the statement? (Laughter.) -

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) .

MR. LAUK: The opposition was on its feet, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question period was called. I have recognized the people who were on their feet. I recognize the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

QUEEN CHARLOTTE FISHERIES CLOSURE

MR. GIBSON: It might not be the same question, Gary.

MR. LAUK: It is!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development. He's been away so long it could be a different question. (Laughter.) I believe the minister met this morning with representatives of Queen Charlotte Fisheries in respect to the very serious plant closure in Richmond affecting the jobs of hundreds of people. I wonder if the minister can report to the House that he and his colleagues have been able to find ways of remedying that situation so that the jobs may be preserved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In response to the member's very sincere question, first of all I might outline to the House that my ministry or the Development Corporation had no prior knowledge of the intended closure of this plant until Saturday afternoon, when I returned from spending from 7 o'clock in the morning till about 1: 30 on the people's business. I returned and, after pursuing several messages that were awaiting me, there was an urgent message from the hon. Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . After talking to him on the telephone, he explained the situation to me. I said that unfortunately there was nothing I could do on a Saturday afternoon because everybody doesn't work like cabinet ministers and Social Credit MLAs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Get the shovel. Give him one of your shovels, Bill.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But I did suggest to the minister that first thing Monday morning I would contact my ministry and also the president of the British Columbia Development Corporation board to seek his assistance, because on the board during the last 18 months we have acquired some expert financial people who have been very successful in matters of this nature and putting together a financial report so that proper decisions could be made. I talked again yesterday to the president, and he stated that the report would be on my desk this morning. Indeed, when I arrived in my office early this morning, the report was there.

Mr. Member, I read the report and had further discussions with the president. He informed me there were further meetings going on and that he had contacted the Ottawa officials of the enterprise development programme, which is the new federal programme which put together all of the other

[ Page 2968 ]

programmes such as GAB ...

MR. WALLACE: There's your programme, Don -GAB!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ... and the Federal Business Development Bank. It's under the very able chairmanship of Mr. Ben Wosk. I also have had further discussions with him just a few moments ago. Well, I guess since the children have been playing in the House, it's probably been almost an hour ago since I left my office. There are further meetings going on, and no conclusions have been reached at the present time.

One of the problems we have in this particular situation is that there are seven companies involved, but we....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. cabinet minister would stick to the subject matter of the question, without elaboration at this point.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to explain all of the things that we've been doing. I want to tell you that everything possible will be done to see that this plant remains open. As I said, there are seven companies involved. I'm waiting for further reports and I want to tell you that we stand ready to call together an emergency meeting of the board of directors of the British Columbia Development Corporation, if that is necessary. If it is recommended and agreed after the meetings we have with the bankers involved, with the Federal Business Development Bank and with the owners, we stand ready to call an emergency meeting of the board to make a decision with regard to what action will be necessary by the Development Corporation to keep this plant open and to ensure the stability of employment for those workers.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Because of the very serious nature of this and the puzzling nature of it - the sudden close-down, with no reasons given - is the minister satisfied that the closure is due to genuine economic pressures? If so, could he tell the House what is the general nature of these pressures and what leads the government is following to alleviate them?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Of course you must realize, Mr. Member, that when we're compiling a report such as this, there is certainly a lot of confidential information garnered from the banks, bank managers and, indeed, from the owners. I'm not at liberty to divulge that information to the House; however, I want to assure the member that I'm satisfied from the report handed me that this matter has been brewing for some time. It's a situation that is found in business quite often. I'm satisfied that there is no external pressure, that there are no monopolies involved in it, and that it's normal. Of course a bank is involved and there was a value judgment made by the bank involved. As I say again, I'm satisfied that this is a normal business occurrence and not something unique.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be satisfied that there are no peculiarities involved but until we see the report we cannot be satisfied on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you state your supplementary question?

MR. LAUK: I'm doing the preamble to it, Mr. Speaker. The opposition is aware that certain confidentialities may have been transmitted to the minister, but would the minister agree to convey the details of that report in confidence to the leaders of the various parties of this House so that we could be comforted in the fact that a judgment that did not involve certain monopolistic pressure was made by the company in question?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke knows that he is a private citizen and has a right to do his own research. If he has evidence that he would supply to me that the case is different from what I have outlined to the House, I'd be quite happy to look into the matter further.

MR. LAUK: My question was: if the minister will not table the report in the House, will he not convey the details of that report to the leaders of the various parties?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll repeat again that if the member has any information which he considers pertinent to this which differs with the information I have given to the House, I'd be most happy to look into the matter further.

MR. LAUK: Is the answer no?

LEGISLATION AFFECTING

VANCOUVER RESOURCES BOARD

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . Is it because the social services committee of the city of Vancouver and the poor people of Vancouver called you, Mr. Minister, to an accounting for the behaviour of your department that you have introduced legislation to wipe out the Vancouver Resources Board?

[ Page 2969 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question is out of order in that you are reflecting now on a bill that is before the House. The proper time to ask questions concerning a bill before the House will be when it is called for second reading. You can make your observations then or when it is in committee stage.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. If I may be allowed to ask my question in a different way, are we to expect, Mr. Speaker - through you, to the Minister of Human Resources - that any organization in this province that dares to question the conduct of that minister will find themselves wiped out? Are we to anticipate that from now on?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Do you call punishing poor people frivolous?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN

ALR REZONING APPLICATION

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In October, 1976, the North Cowichan municipality applied to the cabinet for the release of approximately 70 acres of class 2 agricultural land presently under cultivation, for the purpose of a housing development. I'm instructed that the lawyer representing North Cowichan municipality was a man by the name of Mr. David Williams, QC, who at the time of presentation to the cabinet was also a director of the Timbercrest Estates Ltd., whose president, incidentally, is Herb Doman, a member of the board of BCDC.

Does the minister intend to have the inspector of municipalities conduct an inquiry into this possible conflict of interest?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

PROPOSED TAX ON ENERGY

TO FINANCE PUBLIC TRANSIT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications with regard to his public statement yesterday that there might be good reasons to impose a special tax on energy in major population centres to finance public transit. Could I ask the minister if this particular suggestion was part of the study which the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) announced had preceded the final decision regarding revenue sharing with the municipalities? Was that part of the discussion and study?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. As the hon. member for Oak Bay knows, B.C. Hydro does, through its energy charge, help pay for rapid transit both in this area and in the metropolitan area of Vancouver.

MR. WALLACE: Since the minister's objective, as he stated, was to discourage the inefficient use of the automobile and more efficient use of buses, does the minister's public statement proposing a further energy tax mean that a further increase in gasoline tax could be anticipated as a source of revenue to subsidize bus transit?

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

APPOINTMENT OF J. HENRY SCHROEDER

AND CO.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): This question is to the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs. Have I got it right?

MR * SPEAKER: "Consumer and Corporate Affairs, " hon. member.

MR. LEVI: Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Well, I tried.

The minister has announced a study of capital markets and investment opportunities in British Columbia, part of which is to be done by J. Henry Schroeder and Co. Now the Social Credit Party patronage appointee, Robert Bonner, is a director of that company.

The question is: is the minister aware of Mr. Bonner's involvement? If so, doesn't he consider this to be blatant pork-barrel patronage not in the public interest?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): The answer, Mr. Speaker, to both parts of the speech and both parts of the question, is no.

MR. LEVI: Did the minister approach anyone in the investment industry in British Columbia - we have many people with broad experience - in order to undertake this study rather than go outside of the province and outside of the country to do this?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, in making the selection we did, we consulted with a great many people in the investment industry, both in British

[ Page 2970 ]

Columbia and outside British Columbia, and came up with one person who is eminently suited and satisfactory for the purpose. We're very pleased to have him with us.

MR. LAUK: Did the minister consult with Robert Bonner or ask for his recommendation with respect to the firm chosen?

HON. MR. MAIR: Absolutely not. No.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary: did the minister have anyone on his behalf consult with Robert Bonner on this question or did he receive Mr. Bonner's opinion in any way as to which firm should be chosen?

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer is no.

MR. LEVI: Was the minister aware at the time he made the appointment that Mr. Bonner was on the board of J. Henry Schroeder?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I was not.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister indicate to the House if that would have changed the decision?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I consider that speculative.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a hypothetical question, hon. member.

POSSIBLE LOSS OF

PHARMACARE BENEFITS

MS. BROWN: This question is to the Minister of Human Resources. On June 14, I asked the Minister of Human Resources whether any people presently in receipt of benefits under Pharmacare would lose any of those benefits once this $1 00-deductible plan was introduced. He took my question as notice. Is the minister now ready to give a response?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminated the question period, hon. members.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 and I ask leave to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please state the matter?

MR. LEA: The matter, Mr. Speaker, is the crisis facing the British Columbia fishing industry, which has become apparent today with information indicating a pattern by which the old, respected, independent, B.C.-owned canneries are being wiped out in a single season. More than 1,500 shore and packing-fleet jobs, plus those of hundreds of individual fisherman, are evaporating in an epidemic of peculiar closures, receiverships and financial problems which has hit Francis Millerd and Sons, Mishi Industries, Oakland Industries and now Queen Charlotte Fisheries, right at the start of its busiest and most lucrative season.

These disasters have occurred at the same time that reports have circulated that B.C. Packers, the dominant cannery, owned by the Weston multinational conglomerate, has signed a first-ever contract for export of eight million pounds of sockeye salmon, representing the bulk of an average year's pack to Japan. This strange sequence of events also coincides with the accumulation of several long-planned federal fishery policies concentrating fishing licences into a smaller fleet and extending the fishing limit to 200 miles, a circumstance which has produced a spate of selective deals on both coasts between the major Japanese and Canadian fishing interests.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not proper, when asking for leave to move a motion under standing order 35, to discuss the subject matter of what might be the content of the debate. It's a matter of stating, as concisely as possible, the reason.

MR. LEA: I accept your direction. I just have one small bit to conclude.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. LEA: Unless quick action is taken, many hundreds of traditional British Columbia jobs will disappear forever this year. The situation demands immediate government response and a public inquiry to determine if British Columbia's small independent firms and workers in the fishing industry are being sacrificed to help bring about a secret international cartel,

That is the subject matter, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in speaking to your request for an adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance under standing order 35, I think the hon. member realizes that it's not the matter itself upon which the Speaker must judge; it's really the matter of urgency of debate. Since I've not had an opportunity to study this in detail, and there are in my mind a number of points which I wish to canvass, I'm going to reserve

[ Page 2971 ]

my decision with the hope that I can come in with a decision prior to the 6 o'clock adjournment so that we don't withhold the process of the House in the intervening time.

MR. LEA: I appreciate that you're going to give study to my request, but I would like to point out that as every hour passes by, there are people working in the fishing industry who are having their livelihoods jeopardized. As this decision is let go until a later time, there are people losing their livelihoods in the fishing industry. It is of urgent importance that it be discussed.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate what you've said, hon. member. As you know, it's not a matter of debate at this particular time, but I give you my assurance that I will be back to the House with a decision, if at all possible, before the adjournment this afternoon.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 59: courts, $24,727, 125 - continued.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, way back in January of this year I had an exchange with the Attorney-General during oral questions and I asked the Attorney-General this question:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that the Attorney-General has computerized review records of the provincial courts of the province of British Columbia, which will include things such as judges' time spent in court, the efficiency in delays caused in terms of either court stenographers, prosecutors, defence counsel, witness attendants, police attendants, will the Attorney-General undertake to table that information with this Legislature without delay before proceeding with a plan of unequal justice... ? That was referring to the 180-day proposition.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General answered that question as follows: "First of all, I would like to answer your question in the affirmative." The question was: "Will you table the information?"

Then the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) went on, and his answers are in Hansard, and spoke of other things - the difficulties that were being experienced with the backlog of cases and so forth. The Attorney-General said he'd been attempting to get to the source of those particular reasons and do something about them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I realize that those records are voluminous because under the NDP tenure of government we did compile records, of which printouts would be available, showing the time that a court room would be used, the time the judges would sit, the reasons for delay in the case of adjournments, non-attendance of witness and things of that kind. Difficulties in sometimes finding the prisoners has been referred to. I realize that you can't possibly table all of the information in a raw form publicly, but it can be abstracted. I'm not one of those who think that the case backlog, particularly in the city of Vancouver, is as bad as it's been made out to be. I think good work has been done under Chief Judge Lawrence Brahan of the judicial council, Bruce Donald, the prosecutor in Vancouver, Phil Nurby, regional prosecutor, and the judges. I think the backlog has been pulled back very considerably as a result of bringing management into the court system. However, it's my opinion that the facts of the backlog and the kind of things that I mentioned here should be public property.

I'd like to see that applied in other areas. I would like to see the facts brought before the public of, say, teaching time in universities. I think the public are entitled and able and mature enough to absorb this information and understand that if there is a problem involved what the ramifications of that problem are. I do not believe that, where taxpayers' money is involved in making studies of time involved and possible waste of time, that information should not be made available to the public. Yet a long time has gone by since January 17 when I asked the question. I think I repeated the question a couple of months later and the Attorney-General said, "in due course, " or words to that effect. I don't think the public should have the impression that the judges sit for only three hours in the sitting day, but many of them have that impression.

MR. GIBSON: How long is it, Alex?

MR. MACDONALD: We don't know! I think that's unfair to the judges who are pitching in to get at that overburden of backlogged, backed-up cases, and many of them are working very hard and long hours.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four hours?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you see, that's the popular impression - that they have a very easy day. The popular impression - and it may be true - is that the courtrooms, which are built with large capital cost at the expense of the taxpayer, are not fully utilized by any means, that they have a

[ Page 2972 ]

courtroom used for a morning sitting would be, about the average, two or three hours. Now it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General committed himself to make the basic information public and so far he has not done so. I say to the Attorney-General now: let the sun shine in. Let the public be the judge of the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Judges.

MR. MACDONALD: They understand that in this we're dealing with a human problem. When a court case is scheduled, it involves the attendance of witnesses, some of whom have employment; sheriff services; the prosecutor; defence counsel, who sometimes have other cases and sometimes may or may not be responsible for unnecessary adjournments; and all of these factors. You're dealing with a very human situation where it would be quite impossible to run the courts full bore for an eight-hour shift. Adjournments are often necessary for perfectly valid reasons. Nevertheless, the public has an interest to know that the system is working reasonably efficiently and that everyone in that system is doing their best to see that justice is done and speedily done. My feeling is, let the sun shine in. If records are prepared just like, I believe, the second coal report.... We've never seen that, have we?

MR. LAUK: No. It's buried with the coal.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Why should public documents not be available to the public? Why should the public spend a large sum of money under Bill McMinn, who did a very good job in my department in terms of beginning the compilation of these records? That's the IBM guy, Bill McMinn.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, he did a very good job in terms of.... For the first time in British Columbia he was beginning to put this sort of thing together.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do I have to take his estimates, too?

MR. MACDONALD: No. He's gone; he's going off to that Systems Corporation and....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: But I don't want the Attorney-General to miss the point in the levity. Maybe he is going to say that that information will be made available but I think it should be made available during his estimates. I don't think it's right at all that the public should pay for a study and not have the results. I think we're entitled to know the average courtroom time used and how it varies during the week and whether Friday is an easy day and whether Monday is a busy day and whether there really is a lot of wastage in the court system or whether it's running reasonably well. I believe the public can absorb that information, understand proper explanations and be ready, in a salutary way, to make sure that the system is working efficiently and with justice to both the community and the accused. We've waited now for six months to have this information tabled with the House. I'm asking the Attorney-General if he will table that information forthwith.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his comment concerning the filing of the material. I would commend the hon. member to go to the Clerk's office and you'll find it was filed on April 6.

Insofar as the delays are concerned, I would like to make certain....

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: People get busy. Now don't.... That's all right.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Attorney-General has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Was it announced to the House that you were tabling it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was tabled in the regular way, Mr. Member, I can assure you.

I'd like, though, to say a few words about the point that was raised by the hon. member. I think it's a very valid point that he made. I think the problem was mistakenly referred to as a backlog problem, but by far the majority of the courts in B.C. really didn't have a backlog problem; they did have a problem of trial delay. One of the major causes that was perpetuating this situation of trial delay was stale cases. I think it's of use to read into the record the statement of 1973 of the Law Reform Commission in Ontario when it said this:

"The time has come to view the courts not merely as a collection of talented judicial minds dispensing justice to the best of their abilities, but as a complex institutional process involving lawyers, court clerks, juries, reporters, litigants, witnesses, and to forth."

I'm paraphrasing here:

"What is needed, in short, is a sound managerial approach to court administration based on the concept of the courts as an

[ Page 2973 ]

assembly of interdependent parts forming an integrated whole."

This system's approach to the administration of courts - the orderly and rational process of efficient management - isn't free from difficulty, as everybody knows. There are many effective management techniques which could be borrowed from business and government, but by virtue of the nature of the courts they must be adapted specially for their operation because they are typical neither of business nor of a government agency.

Insofar as the backlog is concerned, I would say that there have been very dramatic improvements made in that area. There is a manageable caseload now.

In December of 1975, dealing with the principal provincial court by way of numbers only in the province - Main Street in Vancouver - there were about 5,500 cases in 1975 to December. That was reduced to 3,300 in June of 1976, and then an earlier figure that I received this year was in the neighbourhood of 2,500.

As you know, this is comprised of several components, as was illustrated in the statements of the Law Reform Commission. We have the judge, we have the court reporter, we have the court clerk, we have the court administration, we've got the sheriffs, we've got the prosecutor, we've got the defence council, we've got the accused individual, and we have witnesses on each side. There are about 10 or more spokes to the wheel and it's not an easy process to have that wheel run effectively and efficiently, but I must say that I think there has been tremendous improvement over the last while. I'd like to pay tribute to the prosecutors, to the court administrators, to the sheriffs and to everyone in the system for contributing to that.

For example, in Vancouver there was a detention area problem with a very badly designed security in the loading area, but that apparently is underway and is being overcome. There was a backup in Oakalla by virtue of prison delivery. The hours were lengthened and the method of classification has been improved.

There was difficulty with police overtime and there was difficulty with the quality control of the police reports. Procedures are underway to correct that.

The sheriffs themselves were relatively a new force and they had some difficulty in working out the wrinkles they were experiencing. Of course, they're very high-profile individuals and they've done an excellent job considering the terrific number of people they transport throughout the year.

The trial-sitting procedures are improved and we've now got, of course, the project in Vancouver, of which I'm sure all the members are supportive.

Prosecutorial salaries have been improved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which project was that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The joint project which I discussed at length yesterday. I don't think I need to take the time of the House again there - the joint project of the Minister of Justice and myself, pre-trial procedure.

The procedures concerning the certification of 0.08s and the general overall communication between the system itself.... I think this is one thing that I'd like to stress as importantly as I can - that the system is speaking to each other. The system is recognizing areas where there can be improvements on one side and the other and they're trying to accommodate each other to provide the best possible service to the citizens of our province.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I've looked at the tabling of April 6 and I don't see that this would help the public to know how many hours of the day a courtroom is used or how many hours of the day a judge sits. Can the Attorney-General give us that information? Has he got it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't have that information available, Mr. Member. I'd like to mention one thing: the hours of sitting of the court are dependent upon the cases before the court and the requirements for preparation and requirements for judgments and a multitude of things. I think it's a very difficult thing to start to equate justice according to time content.

MR. MACDONALD: That may be. It's a difficult problem, but if the courts were, say, working an average of two hours a day, would that not be a matter of concern to the Attorney-General? Can you say if it is two hours or four hours on the average? Are the courts in this area pulling their weight? Are the courts in another area grossly underused? Surely that's the kind of information in the public mind that they're demanding. We really have no information from this trial-tracking information that I have as to whether the courts are being efficiently used. They're very expensive - that building at 222 Main is a very expensive building, and the new complex is - and if there is going to be underutilization of court facilities, of judges' time, of prosecutors' time and of sheriffs' time, then we ought to know about it.

What the Attorney-General is saying is: "I don't know." It would seem to me that we should know. If there are individual problems, then let the Attorney-General issue directions through the judicial council to look into them, but I would think that the public ought to be assured as to whether or not there is underutilization in the justice system and whether we are really getting value for the justice dollar that is being voted in these estimates. Have we no idea?

[ Page 2974 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: A quick response to the hon. member because I see some other members of the opposition wish to make some remarks. I consider that the courts are performing effectively, but if the hon. member knows of any specific cases and specific judges where they are not, please let me know and let the judicial council know. The proper approach, of course, as you would know, is to the judicial council, so if you have that information, please relay it to them.

MR. MACDONALD: We hear the statements on the radio and so forth, and they may be sound or not, but the public is under the impression that there is great underutilization in the provincial court system, particularly in Vancouver. We have here, from the Attorney-General, an indication that with all the statistics that have been collected he can't say whether that's so or not.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you consider the statement you're making correct?

MR. MACDONALD: I could make an opinion not based upon the real facts and I don't want to do that. Neither do you, but you have the facts at your disposal and you've had them for six months. I think that you should be able to say at this time whether value is being received for the justice dollar or not. How else can you answer the statements that are made - some of them are undoubtedly wrong - that you can fire a shot through an empty building at certain times and it's a court building? The public doesn't like that because they feel they are not getting value, and they feel it's sort of elitism taking it easy.

I think they may be totally wrong, but it seems to me that's the material that should be available to the public of B.C. It should be available to the Attorney-General, and he's saying now: "I can't tell you what the average court time is, what the average courtroom use is." We're building another courthouse in New Westminster. Fine, but how can you say whether it's justified or not without knowing whether the facilities are now being reasonably well utilized?

HON. MR. GARDOM: They are. You know as well as I do.

MR. MACDONALD: Nobody knows, and that's where we sit. I say that's not good enough.

MS. BROWN: I certainly want to support the statements of the previous Attorney-General and bring to the present Attorney-General's mind that I have on my desk a case of rape in which a charge was laid on August 13,1976, and they're still waiting for the case to be disposed of.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where?

MS. BROWN: In Vancouver.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Name the case.

MS. BROWN: I'll give you my material. I don't want to use her name, but I'll give you the material I have.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why didn't you give it to us before? We'd have looked into it for you.

MS. BROWN: I'd be very happy to pass it on to you. I'm sure your deputy knows about it because he has been written. The charge was laid on August 13, and they're still waiting.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There may be valid reasons or there may not. It's very difficult to deal with an individual case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I remind the Attorney-General that debate cannot be allowed except by one speaker at a time. That speaker must stand and be recognized. We will be causing no end of chagrin to Hansard people if we follow any other procedure.

MS. BROWN: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I just realized that I've got a carbon copy of a letter written to the Attorney-General about this case, dated June 15. So he has the case on his desk.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I don't.

MS. BROWN: Would you like my copy of your letter? I'd be very happy to let you have it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It doesn't ring a bell to me.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, what I really want to ask the Attorney-General to do is to get me some statistics. Now I have the statistics on rape that show that there were 320 reported rapes in Vancouver last year and 115 charges, but I haven't been able to get the statistics in terms of what went through the courts and how they were disposed of. I'm wondering whether the Attorney-General would be able to get that kind of information for me.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We could try.

MS. BROWN: Fine.

The other thing is that I want to talk about the family court very briefly.

Interjection.

[ Page 2975 ]

MS. BROWN: This is the courts. Yes, rape goes through the courts.

I want to talk very briefly about the family court, Mr. Chairman. When is the Attorney-General or his department going to make some real commitment to the unified family court in terms of money? You know, the commitment's been made verbally in all kinds of ways. When are we going to see some money put into it and really get into the delivery of the unified family court? Family court is always a low priority. It should be a first priority in terms of structure, facilities and staffing. So would the minister just respond to that very quickly - the unified family court and the whole business of structure, facility and staffing?

Does the Attorney-General know that there are some towns and communities in this province where there are not even family counsellors? There's no one around who even knows or can interpret the family relations legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Or for the three years you were in office - that's right.

MS. BROWN: Well, okay. You have your turn now, Mr. Attorney-General. I'm not criticizing; I'm asking questions. This is what estimates are supposed to be all about. I'm asking the Attorney-General if he would give me some answers on that.

The final thing I want to talk about is the native court-worker system. The B.C. Indian centre and the people involved there tell me that there's a great deal of work for more native court workers, Would the Attorney-General tell me whether there are any plans to increase this number? I understand that there's going to be a meeting this month between the native court workers and the judges. Really what we need is some re-education on the part of judges in terms of sentencing native people. I would be interested in hearing the Attorney-General's comments around these areas.

Is the Attorney-General looking into the diversion programmes at all - you know, the business about reserves being paid to take care of the delinquents? This experiment is going on in the United States. Is the Attorney-General exploring the possibility of trying it out here?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sorry. What experiment?

MS. BROWN: Diversion programmes where the reserves take care of the business of dealing with the delinquents.

The other thing that is of alarm is the number of native women in prisons. It seems to be on the increase. I'm not talking about Oakalla and the B.C. Pen; I'm talking about all the little jails around the province. What does this mean? What is happening out there? Does the Attorney-General know? Can he give some kind of explanation for this? The whole business of programmes like work camps, and these kinds of things, are obviously not working for them. What kind of alternatives is he looking at in terms of sentence-working with a number of these women who are being incarcerated at this time?

The Attorney-General received a brief from the Vancouver Indian Centre asking for a worker, a counsellor, for their programme. There hasn't been a response. The Vancouver Indian Centre hasn't heard. Is the Attorney-General going to give them this male counsellor that they're asking for, or has the Attorney-General not got the brief? If so, I'll be very happy again to give him my carbon copy of his copy of the brief if he would like to have it. They're presently still waiting for a response from the department.

If you wouldn't mind, Mr. Attorney-General, answering those questions from me very briefly, I would appreciate it. I have a plane to catch. Sorry, I really do. I'm sorry but I have to get to Vancouver. This is a terrible thing the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) just did to the Vancouver Resources Board, so I have to get to Vancouver. If the Attorney-General wouldn't mind responding....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If you hadn't held up the debate so much earlier this afternoon, we would have had more time with you in the House, you see.

In response to the hon. member, she was talking about family services in the province. She is of course aware that the government announced in the throne speech it was introducing very, very substantial amendments to the Family Relations Act. I'd like to assure the House that that will be coming in front of the Legislature very shortly. I'm sure that the hon. member will be giving us her undivided support to that piece of legislation.

I'd also reiterate that the government has already announced that the two new family courts will be established in the city of Vancouver.

MS. BROWN: The dates I asked for - when?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, you know, we've got to get the land first. We're dealing with the city of Vancouver for the land. You're not suggesting we put up a tent this afternoon to have it do the job. As soon as we can get the land and get the design ready and the contracts out, we'll get along with it. The intention is to get it done. This isn't a promise; it's a commitment.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

[ Page 2976 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Dealing with the concept of a unified family court, it's a concept that I've always supported. Next year, as I indicated in my opening remarks - I'm not too sure if you were in the House - the ministry has established some priorities and I certainly am putting family services and children's services, insofar as my input is concerned, to the Treasury Board as one of the higher priorities. We're going to do as much as we can on that score.

Dealing with rape relief, you wished some figures on the number of rape cases. I gather from the deputy they are not available for last year, but I think by virtue of the systems that we now have in place in court administration the figures will be available for 1977. Maybe that same question could be placed next year and I hope to be able to have that information for you.

I would certainly like to say that a concerted effort is being directed to rape relief and to the prevention of rape in the province of B.C. As you perhaps know, the police estimate that only 10 per cent of all rape offences are reported. Many women are very afraid or embarrassed to report such an assault which, regretfully, gives those offenders an opportunity to strike again.

One part of the effort has been directed to the funding of the coalition of B.C. rape centres and the other to the funding and development of an educational project in rape prevention. In acknowledgement of the combined concerns for the victims of rape, my colleagues, the Ministers of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and Human Resources (Mr Vander Zalm) , and this ministry are providing a total of $125,000 to the coalition of B.C. rape centres this year. The funding consists of $75,000 from the Ministry of Health, $25,000 from the Ministry of Human Resources and $25,000 from this ministry. This core funding will provide for 10 1/2 staff positions and the overhead for four offices: Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo and Kamloops.

In addition to the counselling activities provided by the rape-centre staff, other provisions have been made for victims of rape. They may apply to the criminal victims indemnity fund which is handled through the Workers' Compensation Board. I would certainly suggest to any unfortunate victims of the crime of rape that if they do have a claim they make it to the criminal victims indemnity fund.

More sympathetic - needfully so - and understanding methods of trials have been introduced with amendments to the Criminal Code in 1976. These will allow for closed hearings in rape cases, changes of venue, restrictions on the publication of the woman's name in newspapers and restriction in cross-examination of the woman about prior sexual conduct.

There is another point I think the member will be interested in because, I would certainly like to say, she has done a great deal on this project in this province. She has certainly shown her concern most genuinely. Both the RCMP and the B.C. Police College have training components to assist the police in dealing with rape victims. The RCMP receive this training at the recruit and in-service training levels in B.C. At the Police College these courses are on the curriculum for new recruits and also available in refresher and staff development courses.

The second part of the effort relates to the development of an educational project in rape prevention. Again, in a concerted effort, $15,000 has been raised for this crime prevention project: $8,000 from the provincial government, $5,000 from the Vancouver Foundation - great thanks to the Vancouver Foundation for that - and $2,000 in a grant from the P.A. Woodward Foundation. These dollars are going to be used for the production of a film, a matching handbook, pamphlets and similar publicity material.

During the last two years the B.C. Police Commission has concentrated its crime prevention programmes in household security, with a great measure of success, too. If any of you are unaware of it, it's Operation....

MS. BROWN: Neighbourhood Watch.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sorry, couldn't get the name there. It's the Neighbourhood Watch programme and it's just first class. Some communities have not experienced that. I do wish the press would indicate to those communities to get in touch with their local RCMP and get some community enthusiasm and involvement. It is an excellent programme. It has worked exceptionally well and is a great tribute to the officers in that force,

We would now like to encourage the development of similar resources with respect to crime against people. The Police Commission has selected rape prevention as one of its priorities and it intends to make the material I have been talking about available province-wide.

There is a large committee of 20 people working on it. They are members of the various police forces and rape relief counsellors, and they have reviewed all available material. They have recommended an up-to-date presentation as soon as possible. All sorts of meetings are being held by specialists to develop the project. Once the package has been completed I can assure you it will be adequately publicized.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I was aware of the really good things that were happening through the Attorney-General's department in regard to rape. In this regard, I want to especially say thanks to the Deputy Attorney-General, David Vickers, who has really been marvellous when it comes to rape. It

[ Page 2977 ]

certainly is one of the reasons why I am going to miss him when he leaves.

But you forgot to mention my questions about the native court workers. Thank you very much for everything that's happening, certainly, in that area.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): It's a real pleasure and privilege for me to rise in this debate. I want to touch on several issues that I have mentioned previously and that I have been concerned about for many, many years.

Firstly, I appreciate the hon. Attorney-General's concern about tightening up on impaired driving. Some of us have had first-hand information in respect to some of the things that have been happening on the roads. I appreciate his statement yesterday concerning the empty chairs in the high schools, and I think back some 20 years ago when my brother and I operated an ambulance service in southeastern Manitoba.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are on vote 59. Debate under this vote must pertain to the court system, either as headquarters or the executive direction of the court administration. I'm sure the member has read the vote.

MR. LOEWEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll move on to my next point here, in which I wanted to congratulate the hon. minister in respect to my concern re the courthouse in New Westminster. As he knows, he and I have had many discussions in respect to this ancient facility in New Westminster. In times past I have mentioned the fact that some of the clerks and some of the personnel were going to work with hot-water bottles wrapped around their bodies to keep warm, et cetera, et cetera.

Not too long ago, I had the privilege of going through the courthouse facility with the hon. Attorney-General and seeing first hand, together, that facility. I'm so pleased with the announcement that took place in New Westminster just a couple of weeks ago - the construction of an $18 million justice complex in that lovely city.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I am particularly encouraged, Mr. Chairman, that this facility will not only be an encouragement to the legal services of that community, but it will also be a catalyst in two other respects. Firstly, downtown New Westminster today is primarily a financial-legal service centre. As such, it is these people who have been keeping the downtown of New Westminster going. Secondly, this particular announcement is a psychological and architectural catalyst for the government plans for the total redevelopment of New Westminster. I'm not sure that I am on courthouse committee No. 9, or No. 29, or simply lucky No. 13, but finally we have been able to announce that in the middle of next year the construction will begin.

I'm somewhat perplexed, however, Mr. Chairman, at some of the statements that were made last night by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) . I have a feeling that possibly he confuses my intentions as a neighbouring MLA. He possibly doesn't realize just why the involvement.... I'd just like to quote from the Blues a statement he made which says: "I would, however, like to suggest that there is a good deal of confusion in New Westminster. The confusion has been created as to who might be the member for that area."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must point out that we are on vote 59. You're straying from vote 59 when you discuss as to who the member for New Westminster might be. Kindly get back to courts, would you?

MR. LOEWEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is in respect to the courthouse debate.

Also, in another quote that he made which is directly in relationship to the courthouse and the reconstruction of downtown New Westminster, he says:

. . .of course, at the same time, the then progressive provincial government who recognized the needs of an area, who did not want to see a city die because when a core dies, a city dies, also felt that it was time that something be added that would really provide for the lifeblood of that area, which was the ICBC building.

There are two very critical points in this statement. Firstly, the member being the member of a fast-dying city.... In the press release which he quoted from yesterday, his constituency people are suggesting that he is a three-time member for New Westminster, the city which he confesses and admits is dying or had been dying up to the present time. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that firstly the admission of confusion as to who the member is is a terrible admission; secondly, I suggest that to be the member of a city which is dying is a tragic admission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I've been listening to your debate and I'm having considerable difficulty in rationalizing how it's going to come under vote 59.

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Chairman, the construction of a courthouse - if you are aware of the situation in New Westminster - is directly related, I believe, to the hon. Attorney-General. It has a direct relationship and is of extreme importance to the city of New Westminster.

MR. MACDONALD: That's not your riding!

[ Page 2978 ]

MR. LOEWEN: Finally, the member says:

"Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce to you this very left-wing paper called The New Westminster Columbian. They have tried for a number of years to beat me but they haven't managed yet."

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest one more time that really you can fool some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. I suggest that this member for New Westminster has made a vicious attack on the press and that The Columbian, , newspaper would not lower itself to go out of its way to try to defeat or elect any member, including the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr Chairman, that was a delightful speech by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Yesterday I congratulated the Attorney-General for his hand in providing some direction for a courthouse that's been announced about 40 times in New Westminster. I just said that it was a shame that more wasn't being done at the same time by his colleague and compatriot on ICBC, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , with respect to ICBC.

However, I was somewhat chagrined, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier, whom we all trust, and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) , of whom we think so much, and the Attorney-General went to New Westminster and indicated that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was the member from the region.

MR. LOEWEN: Absolute nonsense!

MR. COCKE: That's what was said in the press, Mr. Member. You can get up again after me.

MR. LOEWEN: Absolute nonsense!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think it was unfortunate. We're driving the Premier out. He should be driven out. He should be embarrassed.

I just want to make sure.... The member for Burnaby-Edmonds asked why I wasn't there. I wasn't there because I wasn't invited, and that member knows it. I wasn't there because I wasn't invited and he knows it. So that's just absolutely ridiculous.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I think that this Mickey Mouse situation should end. I would like to go on with the minister's estimates, if you don't mind.

I'd like to ask him how he's getting along with this schizophrenic situation - oh, he's going - of being the Attorney-General and being a board member on ICBC. The Attorney-General presumably stands behind Judge Mackoff's observations that ICBC's actions were odious. I'm talking in terms of a case where Judge Mackoff heard a case with respect to a Michael Nash. At that time ICBC used as a defence the failure of Mr. Nash to reclaim - to claim, they claim, but actually it was to reclaim because he had already made a claim. They used that as part of their argument for nullifying his claim. The judge indicated that ICBC's action was odious.

Now I presume, Mr. Chairman, that on one hand the Attorney-General supports one of his judge's decisions. I would like the Attorney-General to give us an idea just which he supports the most strongly. I think that it's a case that merits his consideration, if he hasn't already considered it.

The Attorney-General would have spared himself the appearance of talking out of both sides of his face if only he'd had a compassionate heart. It was the NDP government which, when we drafted the ICBC legislation, inserted a clause permitting the corporation to waive technical violations on compassionate grounds. That's available to this bottom-line government, which incidentally, Mr. Chairman, as this court case clearly indicates, is treating people as the old insurance companies used to. Squeeze them at both ends! Squeeze them on their premiums and squeeze them on their claims. Squeeze, squeeze - that's the whole bottom-line concept that this government has. It's indicated very clearly with this court case.

Would the Attorney-General like to indicate to us whether he agrees with the comment of Judge Mackoff that ICBC's behaviour was odious in this respect? Mr. Chairman, I suspect that this millionaire coalition running ICBC will continue to resort to private industry's methods, but I would sure like to have some assurance that at least the Attorney-General, at least the chief law enforcement officer in this province, has something more than this as his basic direction.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to try and press for a more specific answer to the troubling problems in our court system. There seem to be not only the problems that I raised late last night about the efficient use of time and the integration of personnel, but there's also some concern by the judiciary that they are, in fact, running the risk of having their autonomy and freedom encroached upon. They are very concerned to at least have that fear expressed on the floor of this House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that judges, because of their unique position in society, cannot speak for themselves in a public forum. They can be so readily misunderstood if they attempt to do so, and they're all very conscious of their role in society and do not talk in public on these controversial issues which have political overtones. This is the way it should be.

In discussing with judges, it is made plain to me that they believe that under the constitution and the law the government must not and should not run the

[ Page 2979 ]

courts. I looked up a speech which the Chief Justice Nathan Nemetz made before the judges attending the Canadian Bar Association annual meeting in Winnipeg on August 31,1976. One of the points which the chief justice made was in regard to the inherent danger of encroachment by the executive into judicial administration. He made that point very clear, and I'd like to quote one of the sentences from his speech:

"It is my view that the nature of our constitution has created a de facto special independent status for our courts, akin in some respects to the British system but in other respects to the American. But whether one accepts that view or not, I believe that our system, with all its imperfections, is the very foundation of our free society and accordingly must constantly be nourished and zealously guarded and maintained. It cannot, however, be maintained by the diminution of the administrative powers of the judiciary exercised on behalf of all the judges by the chief justices."

He went on to state:

"The agency that formulates administrative policy for the courts should be based within, and be accountable to, the court system itself. It should, therefore, consist exclusively of judges."

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General would care to comment on the concept that perhaps judges should be given the opportunity to elect the judge who shall be the administrative judge for the court system. It's my understanding that at the present time the administrative judge is appointed by government, and indeed by the Attorney-General. In my discussions I understand that there is considerable sentiment among the judiciary that a good system to implement would be where the judges are given a chance to choose the judge from their ranks whom they would consider to be the most suitable and efficient person to hold that very key role of administering the courts totally free and devoid of even any appearance of political interference.

MR. GIBSON: They could exercise their own good judgment.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) interjects, they should be left to exercise their own good judgment in administering the courts as well as the good judgment which they are responsible for exercising in each case which they preside over.

That would be my first question. Does the Attorney-General have any sense of support for the concept that judges should be free or given the opportunity to elect, or choose in some manner, the judge who should be in charge of the administration of the courts so that we could quite clearly dispel any suggestion whatever that the executive arm - namely, the Attorney-General's department - may be, to some degree or other, interfering with what should be the undisputed responsibility of the judges alone to administer the court system?

Some of the other specific questions, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to ask relate to the allegations that have been made frequently as to the hopelessly inefficient operation of the court system. One of the comments that I've heard repeatedly -and I'd like to know where the truth lies - is that we have a system of sheriffs which might have been set up with the best of motivations but which has resulted in individuals with inadequate experience and training attempting to replace the work which was previously done by Vancouver police.

One of my lawyer friends tells me that there are twice as many sheriffs doing the job that was previously done by half that number of police. This is one of the reasons the kind of situation I described last night, where a judge appears in chamber but the prisoner cannot be found, is in some way - and to what degree is what I'm trying to find out - related to the fact that the integration of services by these various spokes of the wheel, as the Attorney-General described the components of the total court system, is ineffective - or perhaps the word is inefficient.

On the other hand, I'm informed, very much due to the initiative of the Deputy Attorney-General, that some very up-to-date, modern concepts - namely, data processing concepts - were introduced to first of all try and define the parameters of the problem. We hear all these statements that courtrooms are sitting empty half the time and that judges work three hours a day, et cetera. I'm sure that is not the case. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, we've had no real up-to-date report by the Attorney-General as to what kinds of improvements have occurred, let us say, in the 18 months or so since the Attorney-General became....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: In very general terms, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General talked about the effect of the 180-day stay and the reduction of cases. He gave very general ballpark figures: "Oh, a little while ago it was 5,500, and then a little later it was 3,300, and some time ago it was. . . ." What kind of information is that for the House? What does "a little while ago" mean - a week ago; a month ago-, a year ago?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have covered 10 points.

MR. WALLACE: I just have to say, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 2980 ]

that I take exception to that flip kind of answer. We're told that 18 months ago the system was in a mess - and it was - and now it's somewhat improved. I think in estimates we're entitled to ask by what amount it has improved. I've got a statement here which I'm not going to quote in detail, but somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 million worth of Vancouver taxpayers' money was being spent wastefully in police overtime, for one thing, in cases that were repeatedly remanded or delayed where the prisoner didn't show up or whatever.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: As the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) interjects, we'll get into more of this when we debate the vote on Crown counsel. I'm not trying to be picky. I'm just trying to find out to what degree the inadequate, wasteful use of our expensive court facilities and personnel has improved in the course of the last year or two.

I've taken the trouble, Mr. Chairman, to have some private discussions with people who know what it's all about, including the Deputy Attorney-General, and I want to know what improvements have occurred and some kinds of specific quantities. In other words, in relation to delay in cases, if the average delay two years ago was 100 days, what is it today? If two years ago there were 5,000 cases awaiting trial, how many are awaiting trial today?

That's what data processing is all about. I thought that data processing meant you push a button and a few seconds later you get a figure, as of a day or two, or a week ago, saying that the cases awaiting trial in all of British Columbia courts as of June 15, or whatever, is X or Y or Z or whatever. Now that's my understanding, and I assume from what the previous Attorney-General stated that Mr. McMinn set up a computer processing system to provide that basic information. Here I am asking a simple question under the administration of the court system and I can't seem to get an answer.

MR. GIBSON: The answer he gives is X; X is as close as Garde can get.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to know more specifically the total number of sheriffs employed in the system now compared to one year ago and two years ago. Because of the fact that the sheriff system has not worked well....

I'm not castigating the sheriffs. Many of them were asked to do a job for which they were inadequately trained compared to a trained policeman. Maybe this proposal that if we took the policeman out of the role of escort and used the policeman more efficiently we would have a better and more efficient system and a cheaper system....

It seems to me from the inadequate information that I have been able to put together that we've got the best of both worlds: the system is not more efficient; otherwise we wouldn't be losing prisoners somewhere in the system; and secondly, we've got a greater total number of staff - police plus sheriffs combined -than we ever had before.

Now these are simple arithmetical questions that I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to know in particular whether the Attorney-General is moving away from placing such reliance on the sheriff system. Maybe two years ago it looked as though we were not making good use of police training or that we were mis-using the experience and abilities of policemen. Maybe it looked like a good idea to divert their duties and bring in another component in the system, namely the sheriff. But there is a lot of comment being made publicly and privately that it hasn't worked. So the question is very simple: is it working? And what numbers of sheriffs do we have? And the work they are doing represents the work done by how many policemen previously? Have we taken 100 policemen out of that role and employed 100 sheriffs? If it isn't working, is the minister moving away from that direction in administration of the courts to try and find a better alternative?

I don't want to get into another vote right now, namely the Crown counsel vote, Mr. Chairman, but it's very difficult not to at least refer to that as another essential element in the inefficient operation of the court system. I wonder if the minister would care to comment as to what he sees as the main underlying cause of the problem in the operation of the courts. Both sides of the House seem to be agreed that there is a very complicated integration required of judges and social workers and clerks and police sheriffs, and I recognize all that. But one of the matters that we hear discussed so frequently in public is what a boon technology and computers have become in simplifying many of these rather complicated operations. The court system is a good example of such a complicated system.

You can go down to the Air Canada office and give details, and they put their message on the computer and you can book your seat on a flight to go to Peru six months from now. We spend all this public money setting up a computer system in the Attorney-General's department and you can't even tell me today how many cases are awaiting trial in British Columbia right now. That to me, as a person who knows nothing about computers, is a little bit of a puzzle. There is a whole variety of things which consumers do every day, and I just picked a quick example such as reserving a seat on a flight from one continent to another. Apparently that can be done in seconds. Yet here we come into a very important debate on estimates on spending of a large amount of public money and we're told that the system has been

[ Page 2981 ]

improved and streamlined and the information bank is much more reliable and readily accessible. I'm finding it very difficult to get some of these quick, accessible, ready answers to what I think are fair and reasonable questions. Maybe the minister is ready to answer them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the hon. member's questions concerning the sheriffs, as I did indicate earlier this afternoon this is one of the high-profile areas within the division. I think that pretty well every error that is made by the sheriffs service is most subject to public scrutiny. There is nothing wrong with that. I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member that there is a staff complement of 443 authorized in the last calendar year. Also, Mr. Member, my information is that the sheriffs made approximately 80,000 prisoner escorts, and I think that's a very significant figure.

There had been some problems in recruitment, in training and deployment of personnel. It is a new service; it did go through growing pains; it has suffered some difficulties by virtue of expansion. But I think it's tempering down, it's rounding out, and I think they're providing a good service. There is some work to be done and I think that is recognized within the sheriff service as well. They seem to feel, as I say, by virtue of the fact that they are high-profile, that they're receiving really far more criticism than they're entitled to.

I see there is a figure in an article in the paper which is in excess of mine insofar as escorts are concerned. Last year it says they escorted 88,726 people. As you know, hon. member, they began relieving the police of court service, of process-serving duties and prisoner escort duties in 1974, and they also escort mental patients and juveniles as well as prisoners. They go through a period of training at the B.C. Institute of Technology, and hopefully when we have the justice institute in place, they will receive that training there. It's about a six-and-a-half-week course. They study the justice system, defensive driving, personal defence, first-aid, the use of small arms, and the basics of criminal law and of civil law.

The deputy sheriffs also have the responsibility of providing security for judges and for juries. They are called upon in civil situations to evict individuals on the criminal side-, on the court side, their job requires searching accused people for weapons and drugs. Of course, they run into many situations of hostility and they run into a number of people who do not have much respect for the law.

So I say, on the basis of the performance of the sheriff service and the fact that they are a relatively new service in the province of B.C., they have every reason to be proud of the developments they have made to this particular point in time.

The hon. member raised a few questions concerning - if I'm not correct here, please correct me - the encroachment into the judicial function. I'm not aware of the executive encroaching into the judicial function. If you have any specifics on that I'd certainly like to receive them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You consider that to be an encroachment. I think that is a point of view, Mr. Member. I appreciate the fact of your suggestion and it's something that I'm prepared to consider, but in no way do I consider that an encroachment into the judicial function at all. I draw your attention to the British North America Act, section 92 (14) . It says: "The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts, is the responsibility of the province."

There is no suggestion that the executive, or my colleague, or any of the colleagues behind me in this office were ever running the judges. That's not the situation at all. Certainly it is up to the court to determine which cases they may hear, but the administration of the services in the courts is really not that of the judges. That is of the people of the province. That is why we have so many components there.

What was your other question?

MR. WALLACE: The number of cases awaiting trial as of today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, I can give you the volume of cases cleared in 1976 in the criminal division. It was 127,000. In the small claims division it was 31,400. These are round figures. In the family court division it was 30,200. In the county and supreme courts, on the criminal side it was 3,250; on the civil side it was 28,400. Divorce, 8,500; probate and admiralty, 9,700; bankruptcy, 1,150; adoption, 1,450. The court of appeal had several hundred cases.

MR. WALLACE: How does that compare with the year before?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's up.

MR. WALLACE: Could you table the figures, perhaps?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sure,

In any day we're running 10,000 to 11,000 cases before the provincial court criminal division. That's province-wide.

[ Page 2982 ]

MR. WALLACE: Is that less than the year before?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's about the same, but they are maintaining a balance. We have some pretty remarkable indicators concerning current performance. In the Vancouver registry of the supreme court in February of this year, you could obtain a civil trial date for a one-day trial for late March. In a county court you could get a day in mid-May. The county court could also accommodate a five-day civil trial in early November of this year, as of February.

Here is an interesting statistic: the total number of cases over 180 days from November, .1976, to April, 1977, has decreased 7.3 per cent.

MR. WALLACE: That is what I'm trying to find out. Would you care to say... ?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think, with every respect to you, hon. member, this is a better question for you to put on the order paper. It requires some specific answers, but I'm doing my best for you.

Compared with the rest of the country - this is a general comment - and compared with the United States of America, really dramatic and most successful strides have occasioned in B.C. I'd say great credit goes to all of those people who are involved in the administration of justice. I'm speaking now pretty well of the 10 components that I earlier referred to. We've made very good headway.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'll just be a moment or two.

I think the experiment in pre-trial admissions to cut down the court time is good. I notice it's voluntary. I think you'll have a problem there because it's not too different from what can happen today. You still can make admissions of fact. I would hope that the experiment period will be short. The big problems are still remaining in the long preliminary inquiries. You might have taped evidence. Sometimes you've got 300 hours of taped evidence in a conspiracy trial - usually drugs. At a preliminary hearing, if you push it for five hours a day, that's 60 hours just to have it read out. If it's a foreign language and it has to be translated it would be much more than that. Then you go over the whole thing again at the trial and it might turn out that only about half an hour of that is vital evidence that is used one way or another in the trial.

So I think that the major reforms, which admittedly are matters of criminal procedure, have to be carried out at the federal level. If a Gulliver were to visit our planet and see the kind of process where a court with all its attendant witnesses and judges and prosecutors and sheriffs was held up for 300 hours to read evidence off a tape, when the people who are concerned could go through that evidence themselves and decide what's going to be used and what isn't and what objections they're going to make and then come back to the judge for a ruling.... It really is a tremendous waste of public money under the kind of archaic judicial procedures we've inherited which don't work today.

So there are major changes to be made at the federal level in the laws of evidence, and I think the rights of the accused can be fully protected. I rather doubt if a voluntary system of pre-trial admissions is going to work in the long run, unless the judge has some clout to say, "Why didn't you agree on that point?" and some kind of a penalty.

I want to ask the Attorney-General's opinion on one other subject. I've got to leave for a meeting in which I'm going to tell them what a good government you've got in this province.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, no, not a tennis game. But I want to ask you what you think about television in a courtroom, or even photographs. We have open courtrooms....

HON. MR. GARDOM: What do you think about it?

MR. MACDONALD: You want my opinion before you give yours. But you're the Attorney-General. You've got the car. You've got the whole works.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The car's falling apart. (Laughter.) Do you want to buy it?

MR. MACDONALD: So why should it be impossible for a television crew to go into a courtroom and see a real criminal trial and show that to their audience on the tube, instead of having the fictionalized sort of courtroom dramas that we see presented to the public on television? Now it won't happen very often, but is there any reason why the press should be barred - in terms of the media press, television and photographers - from a courtroom subject to the approval of the judge? They're doing that in the criminal courts in the state of Washington. I think it should be allowed in the province of British Columbia. You could start with the provincial court. It's subject to the judge.

MR. KING: It's protecting incompetent lawyers.

MR. MACDONALD: If somebody gets pushy about the thing or you're invading privacy, then it can be handled. Why would you bar television cameras if they want to wander into a courtroom and see a slice of life? Would you agree with me that it

[ Page 2983 ]

should be allowed, subject to the presiding judge?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Slice of life!

MR. MACDONALD: It's a simple question. I think it should be allowed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's "a slice of life." That's a great line.

MR. MACDONALD: Why should a portion of the public activities of British Columbians be barred from the electronic media in that way? Why? Why shouldn't they come in and take a photograph of the court process so people can see the real thing if they want to? Why not?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, in response to the first point that you raised, hon. member, dealing with the pre-trial discovery, I'm glad to hear your remarks. As you know, this is a pilot project. I think you're also aware of the fact that the process of preliminary hearing is not being carried forward today in England or in Israel and in some other countries of the world. They are certainly ensuring full protection for the rights of the accused. This is certainly an option that is open to the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Basford) in Canada. I would think that it is one which he's thinking very seriously about. The Law Reform Commission came out with a very excellent report on pre-trial discovery and I commend you to take a look at it. You probably already have.

Dealing with the second point, that is, of course, at the present time a matter of judicial discretion as to whether or not the media of which you speak are permitted to be in the courts. There's no edict laid down by any person in this office, or anywhere in the country; nor is it any part of the Code. One thought comes to mind - the fact is that if it was selective reporting it could perhaps amount to editorializing. As you know, a trial is a terribly, terribly important thing for the person involved in it. If there was only a selection of the evidence portrayed, it could well give an incorrect impression of that which was before the court.

MR. MACDONALD: You get that in the newspaper.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, yes. Then again, maybe the newspaper reporting should improve, too. We discussed this last night when you, or one of your colleagues, talked about the difficulties that are experienced in sentencing. The hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) questioned the problems in sentencing and appreciated, as I did, that it is very difficult.

What the general public sees in a newspaper account is not what the judge hears. He has to consider many, many factors, far, far more than are ever reported. This is no criticism of the media. They have a responsibility to be concise and to present a précis, but the only way a person can effectively reach a conclusion as to that which happened in a trial is to see the whole thing.

MR. MACDONALD: It's all very well to say that it can happen in B.C. but the fact is it never has happened that I know of. I think a lead has to be taken at his level and I think that this is something that should be referred by the Attorney-General to the judicial council to discuss and to see whether or not you can't open the courts to photographs and television, as you have for the print media.

Sure there's a danger of distortion. You only see part of a trial, and a very small part it would be. That danger is inherent in poor reporting in the print media, I suppose. I would suggest that the Attorney-General should have that discussed with the judicial council because without a lead from your office it won't happen. It's as simple as that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just while you were speaking on the point another thought came to mind, and that would be the selection of the case. Say there are 25 cases of - what will I say? - shoplifting, just to take an example, or impaired driving or burglary.

MR. MACDONALD: That's up to the media to select.

HON. MR. GARDOM: All right, it's selective in making the decision that your case would be reported and your colleague from Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) should not be.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. KING: That's all right. I'm not looking for coverage.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just on this instant question. I can see the reason for the Attorney-General's reservations because in some cases the televising of a particular trial might constitute very unusual punishment for the person there, even in the event that they were found innocent. But at the same time I can see the reasons which leave the hon. first member for Vancouver-East (Mr. Macdonald) to call for something of a study of this possibility because I think we should always when we err, err on the side of greater public information.

Therefore I would support the suggestion that the Attorney-General should ask the judicial council to examine this question. Let me ask him as a point of information: has the Law Reform Commission ever

[ Page 2984 ]

examined this particular subject, or might the Attorney-General ask the Law Reform Commission, or whatever body he thinks most appropriate to examine it, to do so? I think it would be a progressive thing in this province to have it looked at, Mr. Chairman.

Now that is not really what I was going to talk about. I want to talk about the general question of who controls our court system. The Attorney-General and many other members here today have talked about the complex interrelations between judges and court administrators ...

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, that's the question, Mr. Member.

... and sheriffs and Crown prosecutors and police and the defence and the witnesses and the plaintiffs and the defendants and so on -- all the people who are the spokes of the wheel, as the Attorney-General calls them.

Now somehow this whole system is not performing in a way that is bringing satisfaction to the public. The public, in my mind, wants three things out of the system. They want, first of all, quality of justice - quality and certainty.

Secondly, they want speedy justice.

MR. LAUK: That's what you want out of it. Does the public?

MR. GIBSON: Most elements of the public, There are some elements of the public who would probably just as soon the courts never convicted anyone, Mr. Member.

After speedy justice I think the public is concerned about the cost of justice. Now somehow the system that we have been following in British Columbia and in Canada hasn't always met these criteria.

This is not a quotation from British Columbia; it's from another province, Ontario, but it could apply to British Columbia. I'm reading here from a White Paper prepared by the Ontario government in October, 1976:

"Due to tremendous caseload increases over the last five years, there is genuine concern that the court system could be irreparably damaged unless significant steps are taken." Later on, they say:

"Serious backlogs exist in the supreme court and county courts. Our provincial court family division has been hard pressed to provide an acceptable minimum of service to the public. The wheels of the system are spinning, the judges and court personnel are working, but their productivity is reduced by the lack of an effective organization to manage the court's work."

This kind of general perception of the problem by the Ontario government led them to refer the general problem to their Law Reform Commission and, at the same time, led them to institute an exercise called the Central West Project, which was an attempt in a particular area of Ontario, in this case around the city of Hamilton, to put in a project management team to better look after the operation of the court system and see how it could be improved.

Some of their concentrations are described at page 7 of that report: the development of office standards for the provincial courts, the general management of the court offices, the development of more effective techniques for allocating the work of court reporters, the development of statistical analysis methods, development of evaluated criteria and standards related to court productivity and case-flow management.

The White Paper states that in all but one crucial area the project team achieved considerable success. They were allowed to monitor the effectiveness of individual offices, allocate administrative resources more effectively, and develop a uniform response throughout the area to administrative changes in court operations. Unfortunately, with all of these administrative improvements, it didn't work.

The next paragraph says: "As discussed below, the present divided administrative structure of the courts prevented any real progress in the key area of case-flow management, " which, I guess, is what the Attorney-General's computer is trying to measure now.

MR. LAUK: How much did Ontario pay for that helpful report?

MR. GIBSON: I'm quoting again:

"Although the project management team in the ministry designed the case-flow management system in Central West, they did not have the authority to execute the system, because the execution of every single administrative decision made by the ministry personnel depended entirely upon the decision of individual judges made in individual cases. Quite properly, of course, ministry personnel had no authority over these decisions."

The conclusion the government of Ontario reached in their White Paper is summarized in one short sentence here: "Divided responsibility is unworkable." They therefore came to the conclusion that a single authority should run the courts - not a divided authority, as between the executive branch and the judiciary.

"Effective court reform is impossible under the present structure of courts administration,

[ Page 2985 ]

which divides the authority for courts administration between the judiciary and the Ministry of the Attorney-General....

"Those responsible must not only be able to control administrative personnel and capital plant but also must be able to allocate judicial officers and, through them, influence the actions of such participants in the court process as lawyers, police, jurors and witnesses."

MR. LAUK: Why do we need a trial at all?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Member, please wait till I've finished the continuation of this argument. Then my learned friend no doubt will stand up and give his own comments on it. I'm looking forward to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: The disappointed emperor.

MR. GIBSON: Are you bucking for the job?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The debate should be for the entire House.

MR. GIBSON: The White Paper considers two possibilities: the government could take over or the judiciary could take over. It states this:

"An increased presence by the government in the administration of case-flow management will inevitably provide the opportunity -generally and in individual cases - to raise the spectre of interference in the judicial process."

I think there is no doubt about that, and I think the comments of the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) earlier on in the debate are a reflection of how that concern is at least beginning to come about in British Columbia.

The White Paper goes on to say:

"Constitutional principle could never permit judges to receive orders from a minister or his servants with respect to the judges' working patterns or caseload. There is, however, no difficulty if individual judges receive this kind of direction from senior judges."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did you say "spectre of administrative interference"? Was that your statement?

MR. GIBSON: I was quoting from the Ontario White Paper.

HON. MR. GARDOM: And you subscribe to that, do you?

MR. GIBSON: I was talking about the raising of the spectre.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You say there is one?

MR. GIBSON: I'm quoting the Ontario White Paper, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman. I'm no lawyer; I'm no expert in these things; I'm just a poor member of the public

MR. LAUK: Poor? Poor?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's misleading the House. Withdraw!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just a minute ... just a speck of dust, Gordon. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: ... who says that there are problems in the court system which I'm trying to understand.

I'm asking the Attorney-General to comment upon a proposal which has been put forward by the Ontario government. That proposal is this: a single authority to govern the court system in the province. Their basic proposal is "legislation be enacted to transfer the day-to-day administrative, financial and operational aspects of courts administration from the Ministry of the Attorney-General to an office of courts administration headed by a judicial council." It goes on to contemplate a judicial council which would have the chief justice of Ontario, in this particular case, as the chairman, the chief justice of the high court, the chief judge of the county court, and so on - a judicial council of, it looks like, se-m, i or eight persons and then an office of courts administration which would report to that group.

There is a concern, naturally, about the proper retention of responsibility to the Legislative Assembly for the expenditure of funds. Under this Ontario White Paper the Lieutenant-Governor would retain the power to appoint provincial judges and the other usual appointments that are made, including masters of the supreme court, sheriffs, and county and district court clerks.

The Attorney-General would naturally retain responsibility for all legislative programmes relating to their court system and the government would retain overall authority and responsibility in relation to the administration of justice through its fiscal, legislative and other controls. It's a delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the governance of our court system, but it's perhaps something we should look at in this province. Is it not possible that our courts would run better if they run under a single boss?

MR. LAUK: No.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. member to my right says "no-, " and I hope he will stand up and say why.

[ Page 2986 ]

But I have this concern. The hon. member for Vancouver-East (Mr. Macdonald) said: "How hard are the judges working?" The executive branch can't control the judges, Mr. Chairman, nor should they; the judges have to control themselves. On the other hand, the public is entitled to some measure of accountability there, because as I said earlier, the public is concerned not merely with the quality of justice and its speed, but also with the cost of justice.

Now in a court today a judge can become very aggrieved and annoyed if the sheriffs' branch hasn't provided that the accused be there, or if a witness is not there because they haven't been properly informed, or because a member of the police who was supposed to testify wasn't there. The judge can be upset, but there's nothing he can do about it.

MR. LAUK: Yes, he can.

MR. GIBSON: What can he do, Mr. Member?

MR. LAUK: Dismiss the case.

MR. GIBSON: Administratively there's nothing he can do about it because he doesn't control that administrative apparatus at the moment.

MR. LAUK: He can dismiss the case, and they have.

MR. GIBSON: Of course he can dismiss the case, Mr. Member, but do you call that the serving of justice? The fact of the matter is that in a situation like that the wheels weren't rolling correctly and the judge had no control over it.

Would we not be better at least to think about a system, Mr. Chairman? As I say, I'm no expert and I don't say that it's the answer, but I ask the Attorney-General to comment on it. What are the merits of a system of this kind whereby there would be a single control over our courts and that control would be done by a judicial council which would be appointed by the government?

I want to raise another question relating to our courts and that concerns the sacrifices that some people....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, you'll get your reply in a minute, Mr. would-be Attorney-General.

MR. LAUK: Somebody has to act.

MR. GIBSON: Digger's measuring the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . You've been measuring that seat.

The problem of jurors who have to serve in trials that can last months on occasion and who may, as a result thereof, suffer considerable financial sacrifice.... Now I know that there are many people who serve on juries that consider it an honour. There are many people that serve on juries who are not thereby foregoing other income; therefore, the rate of pay the Crown pays to jurors is perhaps less important to them. My understanding is that the amount of compensation now provided is $10 a day for the first 10 days and $20 a day thereafter. That's my understanding.

Mr. Chairman, is that fair to a person who has a family to support, mortgage commitments to meet and so on, who might otherwise be making $40 or $50 a day? Sure, if the trial lasts a couple of weeks, that's fine; if it lasts a month, maybe that's fine. But when we get into some of these very complicated drug conspiracy trials that are lasting for months and months, to me that's not fair. To me, the Crown ought to be considering some kind of a system of at least income replacement - income replacement where deprivation can be proved in those kinds of cases. I'd ask the Attorney-General to comment on that and hopefully to give some positive response in that direction.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this vote, and the hon. member is applauding the fact that I changed my mind.

MR. WALLACE: We'd hate to miss a word.

MR. LAUK: If there's one compliment that I must pay to the present Attorney-General.... One knows that we can't often get this opportunity, but when it does arise we should take it. This Attorney-General, unlike that rather colourful and controversial Attorney-General of Ontario who has a Tory banner, but you scratch him and he's got that Liberal, democratic wishy-washiness underneath....

MR. WALLACE: No way! Vicious attack!

MR. LAUK: The present Attorney-General has let the buck stop on his desk and hasn't done much with it since it stopped there. But the fact is that he hasn't passed it on to a committee, or a royal commission, or to some other independent group that will have the problem. The Attorney-General of Ontario asked this expensive group of consultants to provide him with an answer and they ...

MR. GIBSON: It's called the Law Reform Commission; we have one here.

MR. LAUK: The Law Reform Commission -that's an expensive group of consultants. This group provides a very unworkable solution that the judges naturally rejected.

[ Page 2987 ]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: McMurtry says: "Well, if you don't accept the solution, you can handle it because I don't want it." He didn't want it because he couldn't provide any creative solution himself and he was unable to accept the heat of the public in handling the administration of the courts. It's just Liberal hogwash to appoint another committee when the problem is the Attorney-General's. It's no one else's. It's his problem, and the fact that he has handled it badly should not mean that we hand it to somebody else.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The compliment didn't last long!

MR. LAUK: No it didn't.

First of all, to appoint a tribunal to handle the administration of the courts made up of judges is a contradiction in terms. Let's quietly reflect on the role of a judge in a courtroom. He is not concerned with the time involved, nor should he be. He is not concerned with the cost of that trial, nor should he be. That does not mean that the other officers of that court - being the Crown, the defence counsel, the police and the administrators - shouldn't be concerned with costs and time. But the judge must not be concerned.

MR. WALLACE: He's concerned that the prisoner show up.

MR. LAUK: I'll give you an example. It has been said that some judges, perhaps in other jurisdictions, have forced cases onto trial before the defence or the Crown is adequately prepared to present its case. The reasons given for such unseemly haste are costs and delay. Now what happens in that situation?

MR. GIBSON: Justice delayed is justice denied.

MR. LAUK: Indeed, sir. The Liberal leader is the master of the cliché. As the Attorney-General would like to add, he's just usurped my place.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What did he say?

MR. LAUK: What am I saying? Oh, he said: "Justice delayed is justice denied."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is that like boys will be boys and girls will be girls?

MR. LAUK: That's right. A rolling stone saves nine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: This is a serious matter. I think that we have to look carefully at the role of a judge. Too often the public mistakes the judge's role as being one to administer the court administration - that is time, witnesses and so on. If he involves himself in that concern, he loses sight of his task, which is a solemn inquiry into the truth. We can make the court system extremely efficient. We can eliminate it. We can abolish the courts. We can have a special tribunal that will make a summary judgment and carry out the sentence all in one five- or ten-minute space of time. If it wasn't for the independence of the bar and the judicial people in this country we'd be living in a paramilitary state. I say, yes, become efficient. But in that drive for efficiency, let's not lose track of the reason for the whole court system in the first place, which is a solemn inquiry into the truth. You can't have it when you become administratively conscious at the judicial level. Administration and the judiciary are two mutually exclusive areas in our system.

I would say that it's wrong for the Attorney-General of Ontario to hand this over to that group of judges to handle administration because they'll be putting pressure on their colleagues on the bench to hurry up cases and to do all kinds of things in the name of efficiency. They'll begin to lose track of justice - a fair trial. I mean fair to the public in the sense that it is in the public's interest for a good Crown presentation, and it's fair to the public because it's also in their interest to have the defence well prepared as well. The basis of our judicial system in this country is that fair trial. No judge should !-intimidated by any fancy-pants liberal schemes to become efficient at the expense of a fair trial.

MR. WALLACE: Shame on you!

MR. LAUK: You can't have it.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll be finished in a minute. Just don't get your shirt in a knot.

Mr. Chairman, under the court system, I must be very critical of the way to solve the problem which the Attorney-General came up with - that is, to have a memorandum sent saying: "Stay proceedings on a certain number of charges that have accumulated." I don't think that's an answer. That's a copout, too. I think it's a copout to start throwing up your hands and saying: "Well, it's going to be too costly here and too costly there and we can't get agreement here and can't get agreement there." An example is the Crown counsel, and we'll be dealing with the Crown counsel under that vote. That is where the Attorney-General has fallen down so badly, He has not coped with that problem adequately and lie did not deal with it forcefully - always a political expedient, never doing

[ Page 2988 ]

his job as the Attorney-General.

As I've said before in all of these estimates, the Attorney-General is no ordinary cabinet minister. He is the chief law enforcement officer of the province. He has the sacred trust of the administration of justice in his office. He cannot be swayed by the political arguments of his colleagues, nor should he be. He's got to provide an adequate judicial and administrative system of justice in this province and he has to avoid political expediency and partisan politics in carrying out those duties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to vote 59.

MR. LAUK: This has very much to do with the court system, Mr. Chairman. He cannot sacrifice adequate justice in this province for the sake of Treasury Board pressure or other political considerations. His job is higher than that. His job, as I say, is a sacred trust in that regard. I certainly urge, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General not accept any of the White Paper recommendations in Ontario. We know there's a problem with the administration of the courts in this province. We know there are backlogs from time to time. But you don't solve it by drawing in the judiciary and passing the buck. It's his problem and he's got to solve it and he's got to leave the judges out of it to do their duty.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just in order to prevent the debate between the two members - and I greatly appreciate them perhaps carrying on together.... Notwithstanding that it's extremely interesting, I think in the interests of all the members it is becoming slightly time-consuming.

Dealing with the job of who is running the courts, all of the Attorneys-General in the country rejected the attitude that was taken by the Attorney-General of Ontario to a great extent on the statements that were articulated by my learned friend from Vancouver Centre, and also on the basis of accountability. Judges are appointed; they're not elected. They have a unique type of independence and correctly so. They're not responsible per se to the taxpayers and their job is to be judging and not administering. The very same Law Reform Commission that my friend from North Vancouver (Mr. Gibson) was referring to recommended in 1973 that the administration of justice should remain with the executive. So we seem to see a pretty fair departure there.

Insofar as the 180-day rule is concerned, it was an appropriate measure at the point in time, and was certainly very, very consistent with other measures that were adopted in other areas of the country. It did not deal with the serious cases. It dealt with the summary conviction cases and it dealt with cases that were then and there before the court - not with ones wherein adjournments were granted under objection. I draw your attention once again, hon. member for Vancouver Centre, to the report of '73 of the Law Reform Commission, which subscribes to the points which you articulated a few moments ago. It indicated that the goal as to time should be established:

"In our view, 90 days should be sufficient time for the state to prepare and present its case against an accused and sufficient time for an accused to retain and instruct counsel. In the state of New York, where there were the most serious trial delays in the western world, this measure was adopted in 1972, fixing a goal of six months, running from the date of arrest or summons. Similar practices ranging from 60 to 180 days have been adopted in many American states. Scotland has a rule of 110 days.

"The national advisory commission on criminal justice standards and goals in the United States recommended that the period from arrest to the beginning of trial of a felony prosecution generally should not be longer than 60 days."

I suppose, Mr. Member, since the time your colleague was in office over here, in B.C. there has been a goal of 90 days. But it wasn't until 1976 that adequate information systems allowed us to understand the nature and extent of the caseload within this province. Hence that was the reason for the directive. It was one not idly taken. But I think the system is responding to it and, surely to goodness, defence counsel and prosecutors can arrange to have this done within that period of time. I think it's a good step forward.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm a simple man in these things but I wouldn't want the Attorney-General to reject this concept too quickly. The uniting characteristic of many of the governments in this country is a tremendous hesitation to give up any control over anything. They keep talking about decentralization yet they refuse to decentralize to the smaller units of jurisdiction within their own province, for example. So it doesn't surprise me that on grounds of accountability the Attorney-General should say that these kinds of administrative powers shouldn't be given to the courts.

But I would ask him, for example, what kind of an auditor-general we would have in this province if the auditor-general didn't have control over her own administrative staff. I'm not asking the Attorney-General to give the courts prosecutorial power, for example, but rather the administrative machinery of running the courts.

MR. LAUK: Oh, that's a terrible example!

[ Page 2989 ]

MR. GIBSON: No it's not a terrible example. Let me move on for example, to the ombudsman or the rentalsman.

MR. LAUK: Neither are judiciary.

MR. GIBSON: They're quasi-judicial, Mr. Member. Is it conceivable... ? That's what I say. Surely the judiciary should have more resources at their behest and disposal than should these quasi-judicial people.

MR. LAUK: You went to Harvard?

MR. GIBSON: Let me quote again. This is a speech made by Mr. McMurtry on January 31 of this year. Knowing the respect of my learned friend from Vancouver Centre for the British system of justice, I'll quote this paragraph:

".You will note the similarity of these conclusions with the conclusions reached by the Beeching commission in the British government. I think it is very significant that two different jurisdictions sharing a common heritage and many of the same problems have chosen a basically similar approach."

Then I go on to address that hon. member's concern about the independence of the judiciary, quoting again:

" It should be obvious that the unified management of all these matters cannot be consolidated in the hands of the Attorney-General or any other minister of the Crown. Our entire court system is premised upon the principle of the independence of the judiciary. That principle includes the proposition that judges cannot take direction from the government with respect to any judicial matter that arises in relation to the trial of a case. While judges cannot take direction or guidance from the government in these matters, they can and must take direction and guidance from senior members of the judiciary itself. For that reason, the only logical place to consolidate the management of the courts is in a body composed of senior members of the judiciary."

I come back to the spectre raised by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) of a dollar-conscious judge presiding at a trial, anxious to get it over for grounds of financial efficiency. Mr. Member, I think that is most unlikely. The administration of the courts obviously would be run by a council of senior judges, not by practising judges sitting on the bench.

MR. LAUK: How would they impose their regulations and guidelines?

MR. GIBSON: They would impose their regulations and guidelines by directing their brother judges and having that authority as members of the judicial council. But the individual judges, naturally, would have the authority of the courtroom.

To me, Mr. Chairman, it is just an obvious thing that a judiciary governed by judges would be more independent than a judiciary, important aspects of whose administration is governed by the executive branch of the government. That seems clear enough to me.

Now I'm not saying that the Attorney-General implement this. I'm just saying it's an interesting idea.

MR. LAUK: Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: Why reject it? Why lose sight of it? I'm glad that you've considered it once and I appreciate again the remarks of the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre. I wish he'd done his characteristic research on this question.

MR. NICOLSON: You know, it's rather interesting, when we start to talk about the court system, being from a profession that has been under attack, I suppose, from the time of the Greeks, to see how twitchy the members of the legal profession get when they're subjected to some minor criticism and....

MR. WALLACE: Oh, attacking your colleague, eh?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's in my party!

MR. NICOLSON: I'll probably just be a prelude to some comments by our party leader.

Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said about the court system. I'd like to bring to the Attorney-General's attention four incidents which cause in my mind a great deal of concern. I'm aware that some measures are being taken in the Vancouver area. I'm aware of some of the efforts that are being taken at 222 Main Street; and some of the efforts that are being taken at 800 Georgia; and some of the plans and the guidelines which are given to Crown counsel on management of witnesses and on streamlining of things in the courts.

But, you know, there are other addresses. There's the Ward Street courthouse in Nelson, the 10th Avenue courthouse in Creston, and there's one in Salmo.

HON. MR GARDOM: That's a nice courthouse.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, the one in Nelson was designed by Francis Rattenbury, as were these chambers.

[ Page 2990 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: And they haven't been cleaned since!

MR. NICOLSON: However, I'd like to bring to the minister's attention the type of thing that's happening and that leads to tremendous cost, not just in the court but to our police system. I notice, for instance, in some of the efforts which are being taken on witness notification - and I won't go into great details on this - that the objectives are to improve the efficiency of the court system by eliminating unnecessary attendance in court of police and civilian witnesses in order to reduce the cost of police overtime and alienation of civilians to the court system.

Well, this is telling us that there is excessive overtime being paid to police because of unnecessary appearances in court, and I would like. . , . It is my information that the overtime leads to constables at the minimum rate of pay making as much as $29,000 in the year 1976 - $29,000 is a fairly decent rate of pay. It's unnecessarily high because of some of these inefficiencies.

Indeed, I'm informed that in the Nelson city police department, because of the mismanagement of witnesses in the court system, one of the constables last year - and he's at the minimum rate of pay -earned some $20,000. That was considerably in excess because Nelson city police at that time were under some constriction of the AIB and were a couple of thousand dollars behind their colleagues in the rest of the province.

Some of the things that lead to these things.... There was an incident last summer, which the Attorney-General might be familiar with, in which a gang of motorcyclists came through the interior and created a great deal of excitement. Arising from that, charges were laid against one individual.

This necessitated two trips up from Vancouver for the witness who, I assume, had to be escorted. After these two trips there was a stay of proceedings given. Should there not be some direction? Are we going to enforce laws and are we going to bring charges, or is it better just not to bring charges in the first instance? Certainly a great deal of expense and effort was taken. After two trips up from Nelson for.... What was it - remand? I don't know all these legal terms. Maybe it was examination for discovery or something of that nature. But after two necessary trips for this accused person there was finally a dismissal.

In another incident, the local police chief was touring with one of his constables in the small hours of the morning. He remained in the police car when the constable went to apprehend a person who was driving impaired. The Crown counsel required the attendance of the police chief as a witness although he remained in the car and made every effort to keep away from being of any use as a witness in this particular case because the constable was quite capable of doing it and because with a 14-person police force you don't like to have to take up the time of two constables waiting in court. The chief was required to appear in court. There were at least two adjournments of this case with a great amount of waiting time in the witness room. Then when the chief finally took the witness stand, he was merely asked by the Crown counsel: "Is it part of your duty to be riding with one of your constables at 1:30 a.m. when they are on patrol and you are not normally on duty?"

This is an example of the type of thing that is going on. I know of some of these efforts that are being taken to streamline things in Vancouver, but I ask this question: what directives are being given to Crown counsel in general about the calling of witnesses? This is not just in Vancouver. I think that a great deal could be done ' Some very strong messages should be given to Crown counsel about such a waste of very previous time that would be much better spent in investigation rather than in unnecessary appearances.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we have a little order in committee, please?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You are talking about their consideration of case?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes. I'm aware, Mr. Chairman of some of the efforts that are being made in the lower mainland and in the Vancouver courthouses at Main Street and Georgia Street.

Also, something in my area has been brought to my attention by police constables of both the city and RCMP of more than one detachment. This is a matter which I'm going to put in very general terms but I think it is somewhat typified by a letter from a lay person from the Creston area. I won't use their names. I'll just substitute the names A and B.

The letter was addressed to you. It said:

"Dear Sir

"I realize the problems in the courts in Vancouver must be a very pressing problem at this time. The problems in the interior are just as serious.

"Two months ago my store was broken into. I have a sub-post office in the building. Two mail bags were stolen by two adults and two juveniles. The money was stolen from the bags, and the mail and bags burned.

"Today in court, one of the adults was defended by a lawyer by the name of Mr. A. The judge was Mr. B who, I have been made to understand, used to be a partner of Mr. A. The adult he was defending received a conditional discharge by Judge B. I have read in section 314

[ Page 2991 ]

of the Criminal Code of Canada that theft, et cetera of mail is an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment up to 10 years maximum. This lad pleaded guilty to stealing and burning the mail. He received one year's probation and restitution.

"In this area we have judges from the West Kootenays and lawyers from Cranbrook, B C. It seems that these people could care less about our local issues. Is this the sort of justice we will go on receiving in this area, or will an investigation be forthcoming? I would appreciate hearing from your office as to why a mockery is being made of our judicial system as it is today. I'm surprised that the RCMP bother arresting people when sentences such as the one mentioned above are being handed out."

I don't necessarily concur with all of the things in this, but the thing I d like to bring to the Attorney-General s attention, Mr Chairman, is that in the small communities where we have appointed judges from the local area - and there are several of them-, enough, I think, to protect anonymity - it is the feeling, and it is being said in the community, that probably half or a quarter of the time, unlike in Vancouver where it might be an infrequent event, these people are having their former law partners appear before them in the courts. This is as it is perceived by the people and, I dare say, by a goodly number of the RCMP in the various detachments with whom I've discussed this and who have more or less volunteered it to me in passing. It s perceived by a few of the city of Nelson police as well.

I'd like to close with one other thing which gives an impression of the way in which we see justice being done in the Nelson-Creston riding. This is an editorial which says: "Has justice been equally done?" This is more on the inefficiency in the court system and the types of mistakes that can lead to some very unequal justice being meted out.

"Three young men were arrested in Creston and charged with the possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking after RCMP had seized a marijuana cache last March. All three appeared in court charged with identical offences and all three were remanded without plea until they could obtain legal counsel.

"The three, all without legal counsel, entered guilty pleas to the charges and elected to be tried by a magistrate after they had been advised of the serious nature of their offence. All three were remanded in custody until they again appeared in court on May 11 for sentencing. However, one of the three, between the second and third appearance in court, had obtained legal counsel. When that man appeared in court, represented by counsel, he was allowed to change his plea to not guilty and his trial date was set for July 20.

"Meanwhile, the other two were sentenced to six months in the Kamloops correctional institute, but the other was released on his own recognizance. On July 20, the charges against that man were withdrawn, although he had been charged on the identical count as the others. The Crown, having flown in the two men serving their sentences as witnesses, accompanied by a sheriff, and having flown in a police witness from Vancouver, did not submit any evidence in the case.

"Why? Because the police, although they had tried, had been unable to locate the accused to serve the necessary certificates of analysis, as he had moved from his previous address, apparently leaving no forwarding address. It has since been learned that the accused moved to somewhere in the Vancouver area.

"The prosecution felt that service of the documents just prior to the court Tuesday morning would not be acceptable by the court as a reasonable length of time prior to trial and the charge was withdrawn. This conclusion was drawn from the study of similar law cases.

"Do we sympathize with the two subjects who did not have a change of plea entered for them and wound up serving time, or do we congratulate the third subject on being able to travel through our justice system without being scathed?

"Court is held in Creston every Tuesday and Friday and it might be an educational experience to attend to see how justice is administered - that is, of course, if you're not too busy watching Monte Hall's 'Let's Make a Deal' on TV."

Now this editor is a fairly mature, long-time resident. I believe he's been a city councillor. He's served the community of Creston many times. I don't think he wrote this lightly. It, to my mind, points up several things, one of which is not allowing legal aid -which we can talk about later - for persons charged with narcotics offences.

This to a non-lawyer such as myself seems to be an administrative ball-up. I don't see, for instance, if for some reason they couldn't locate the witness at that particular time, why the prosecution couldn't have perhaps have asked for an adjournment. Was it not this person's responsibility, when he's been released on his own recognizance, to show up for a trial? In fact, is there no law against moving away without leaving a forwarding address?

So here we have two young people serving six months in prison and we have another one going scot-free. What has that done to both of their senses of the judicial system? If I was one of those two persons

[ Page 2992 ]

who pleaded guilty, took the medicine and the decision of the court, and served that time, I would be very, very bitter. If I were the other person, I would have nothing but contempt for the court and be encouraged to disobey it again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is this a drug case?

MR. NICOLSON: A drug case.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Marijuana?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, marijuana - cache of marijuana.

So just to sort of summarize, I've pointed out that there are administrative foul-ups going on, certainly in the Nelson-Creston court system; that there is a great deal of suspicion about the practice which has evolved, where we have appointed.... And we appointed, I think, the particular judge I'm talking about. But I'm talking about the way things are today and the way they're perceived.

It was a change which was made when we moved away from magistrates, and we have people more trained in the law now sitting as judges. Rather than having magistrates on these similar cases, we have provincial court judges. I would suggest that perhaps provincial court judges should be sent out of their area. When an appointment is made of a lawyer who shows himself worthy and capable in the Kootenay area he should perhaps be sent to some other geographical area.

I would like the Attorney-General to also outline what directives are given to Crown counsel, courts and such, so that some of the streamlining efforts which are being made at 222 Main Street and at 800 Georgia Street are also going to happen in the courts in the interior.

There's a tremendous amount of money involved and it doesn't just all show up in your estimates. Some of it shows up in the budget of the city of Nelson, which has to pay for its police system. I'll have more to say about that under the appropriate estimate number.

Those were four areas which I'd like to hear some comment on.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Dealing with the quality-control problems that the member referred to concerning the overtime of police officers, I would respectfully suggest that quality control is required at a variety of ends there. No. 1, a case should not be scheduled on his day off; secondly, there should be a better type of reporting. If the reporting is weak, the reporting should be brought up to scratch. That message, I think, has been very clearly disseminated to all of the forces in the province and they're acting upon it. Certainly, of course, there should be the optimum perusal by Crown counsel of the material that they receive.

You're referring really to a number of specific complaints. Of course, as you know, this is a large province and this is an extremely large system. We have developed the regional attitude and there is a regional response there. I would suggest to you, sir, and to all members of the House, that some of these individual problems and cases that you're talking about should be brought to the attention of the regional Crown counsel. If action is required in one area or another, fine and dandy, he can look into it and see what can be done. That's why, apart from anything else, the regional concept has been developed in order to provide a more prompt and a better response.

We're running 3,000 cases a month. You've illustrated a number of nameless cases; your colleagues have done the same thing here today. I can certainly inform you of what the general policy is, but insofar as saying, "yes, I know about that case, " or "no, I don't know about the other case, " that's physically and practically impossible, as you'll truly appreciate.

Dealing with the directives to areas other than Vancouver, it's an excellent point. Yes, that has been done. The directives that are going out are going out to the regional Crowns, the Crowns throughout the province, and to the police as well. Certainly there's a very great need and requirement within the system to determine if a witness is essential. This part again is part of the project that we are articulating and developing in the city of Vancouver and which can be done to an extent by consent in any locality in the province. There's absolutely no need to clutter a courtroom with three or four witnesses if they're not required. That should not occasion. I repeat: it should not have happened. If it is happening in your area and you know about it, please, sir, let the regional Crown counsel know about it.

Dealing with the independence of the judiciary, I have complete confidence in the judges in B.C. I do know that a circuit system is developing. I'm not opposed to the suggestion that you have raised that perhaps people should be out of the area in which they're totally localized for a period of time. I'm prepared to look at that. But again, this decision is not mine as the executive in relying upon the independence of the judiciary. This is a point that you should make, if you feel strongly about it, to the judicial council, or people in your area should draw that to the attention of the judicial council.

I reiterate that it's difficult and most unrealistic for me to comment on specific cases. The last one you raised is not one that's in the provincial system at all. Now I could have saved you some time in the House. I could have directed you to a proper source for your query and perhaps an opportunity for you

[ Page 2993 ]

to have an adequate and an effective response to the problem that you raised, maybe not in dealing with that case but in dealing with future cases of that kind. That's within the federal system.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr Chairman on vote 59, I would like to touch very briefly on something that the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) touched on very briefly in her debate this afternoon. She mentioned her concerns about the judicial system and I believe some of the shrapnel of the usual barrage of debate ricocheted, at least for the moment, off the subject of diversion programmes.

I know that the hon. Attorney-General has received a brief recently - Monday, in fact - on a proposed diversion programme for women. I'm surprised that that first member for Vancouver-Burrard wasn't aware that we had a need in this area and didn't bring it up. This is a programme designed for first offenders. I know that the Attorney-General is viewing this brief with considerable interest since no such programme presently exists in the province. Certainly it should be implemented.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is of course aware, as most members in this chamber are aware, I believe, that there is a for-men-only programme existing in the form of the Fraser Region Adult Diversion Programme that operates at Kingsway and Burnaby. It is for men only. I'm surprised, as I said earlier, that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard hasn't kept herself informed on this need and focused her concerns on the needs in the court system to equally serve both men and women.

The proposal has much merit, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to touch on just a few of the points of the proposed programme, which would offer or provide a more intensive supervision and could, anywhere reasonably, be expected through probation offices, which we all know are tremendously overburdened at this present point in time. These areas include personal and group counselling, job-search readiness, training and assistance, educational upgrading, tutoring and information, mental health and life skills, leisure time and social programmes.

Assistance and referrals could be made to educational employment, welfare, mental health and other areas deemed appropriate, without logging all of this unnecessary time in the court system for first offenders. Following their formal completion of such a programme, those clients who would be placed in that area could choose to remain involved in the programme on a detached basis until such time as it was not deemed necessary.

The referral criteria are important here. I think, as was included in t hat brief to you, Mr. Attorney-General, it should consist of those female persons between and including the ages of 14 and 24. The programme could accept all offences with the exception of crimes of violence. Those refer-red by a court order would have been subject to an imprisonment disposition for a period of three to six months. An offender's attitude towards the offence of the criminal justice system - the offender's unwillingness to become involved in the diversion programme - is not sufficient reason to rule out the fact that an offender should, in fact, be referred to such a system.

I think the idea has much merit. One of the major goals of any diversion programme, of course, is to attempt to change those negative attitudes toward self and society held by those offenders. I think the idea would be to offer every female offender who enters the diversion programme an opportunity of becoming a law-abiding citizen within the criminal justice system.

I think the idea deserves consideration because it is the first such programme of its kind to be proposed in British Columbia for female offenders of and including the ages 14 to 24. These women would be first-time offenders. They would be diverted through a court order to a programme for intensive treatment.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General - and I know I have his undivided attention - statistics now being researched suggest that even the population at Oakalla women's correctional centre could be decreased by approximately 30 per cent if such a programme were to be considered and implemented.

Corrections would benefit in three ways through a programme such as this: (1) it could speed up the backlogged cases that are presently jamming our judicial and court system; (2) it could help speed up the process of closing that women's correctional centre at Oakalla; and (3) it could make useful, law-abiding citizens of the individuals before they become contaminated in an institution.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that such a programme, under the authority of the criminal justice system, would be in closer contact with judges, barristers and solicitors involved - both the prosecutors and the defence - allowing a better community-oriented level of communication between the proposed women's diversion programme and those women in conflict with the law at a level more easily understood by those women and freer from bureaucratic interference and the complications that the court system can inject into such problems.

As I said earlier, I know the Attorney-General has received this brief and is giving it his consideration. For that I congratulate him. That's really all I have to say on vote 59.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to thank the

[ Page 2994 ]

member for his remarks. It is a commendable suggestion. The diversion of offenders from the justice system has become a very important part of discussion, particularly within the corrections branch. There have already been a number of very positive steps taken and I'm pleased to say that in 1976 the branch seconded an individual to look at diversion in the programmes of the branch and within the justice system - for example, police, private agencies and citizen volunteers - and to assist in the development of an enlarged policy with respect to the whole area of pre-trial services. The results of that finding, I gather, will be available before the end of the year. I'm sure that this aspect will also be one that will be considered at that time.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it's always with a bit of hesitancy that I rise to take part in the debate on the estimates for the Attorney-General, because I think I probably share the feeling of timidity that is part and parcel of the general public in relation to the mystique that seems to surround the legal system.

MR. WALLACE: There's no mystique.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the Conservative leader says there's no mystique.

There certainly is a great feeling among the public that that does exist. I will perhaps have some further comments on that under a further vote. As I say, it is with a bit of hesitancy that I arise to make suggestions to the Attorney-General regarding the courts in British Columbia.

I would suggest that much of the debate today has been about the fact that the courts in British Columbia are being used ineffectively. When the present procedures were established, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the legal load was quite different from what it is today. We have had changes in society that have changed the type of cases that are coming before the courts. As the result of that, much of the original intent of the procedures which were established years ago and are still in effect have been outmoded.

For example, motor-vehicle accidents were few and far between and injuries from motor-vehicle accidents were very limited in the days when the procedures were established that those cases should go before the supreme court. Now their incidence is very great.

The same is true of divorce and maintenance cases. The degree of incidence has greatly changed. That is certainly part of the reason why we are involved in this heavy load in the courts and what I would term inefficient use of the courts.

In order to correct some of those things I would have the rashness to offer a few suggestions, which I have gathered in discussions with people in my constituency and acquaintances and people I know throughout the province, as to things that might be done.

In the first instance: in supreme court, where all personal injuries arising from motor-vehicle accidents have to be considered, I would suggest that those should be removed from supreme court and referred to an extension of the WCB. Certainly the WCB does handle more than workers' compensation cases. It deals with criminal injuries and other types of things similar to motor-vehicle accidents resulting in injury. I can see no reason why that particular facet couldn't be handled by an extension of the WCB, rather than clogging up our supreme court in having to make decisions regarding those motor-vehicle injuries. This would free up the judges to do the work for which the original establishment of the supreme court intended them to do.

As far as the appeal court goes, I'm sure that the Attorney-General in his wisdom could find a way that any appeals from those motor-vehicle injuries could be appealed and handled by appointment, or whatever, in the appeal court.

As far as family courts go, we have a great clogging in family courts on problems of maintenance where those family courts should be dealing with the more personal types of things such as custody.

One way out of that, Mr. Attorney-General, might be to use the income tax. Certainly people are traceable through their social insurance numbers, which is part and parcel of their income tax return. That return indicates more clearly than evidence even given under oath in court what their income is and whether or not they are able to maintain. This would be a route that could be used and would free up the family court again for the purpose for which it was intended when the procedures were set up to deal with those personal family-relationship matters that should be considered by family courts.

Turning to small claims court, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the maximum is $1,000. I'm sure that must have been set a long time ago.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In 1975.

MRS. WALLACE: A recent article in the Advocate, which you may have read....

That was set in 1975, was it? Well, it's still too low, Mr. Chairman, if you are prepared to accept the contention of one Phillip D.A. Collins. He indicated that the costs to take a claim to supreme court is something between $7,500 and $10,000 that you would have to recover in order to make it worth your while. So certainly that limit of $1,000 on small claims court is too low. If that were increased, then perhaps we could move to a point where we would take many of those cases out of the supreme court area and make it more viable for people to take court cases into the small claims court.

[ Page 2995 ]

I have just one other comment on the federal court. I am simply passing on some information that I received earlier this week. I'm sure you are aware of this, Mr. Attorney-General, but I understand that the federal court rents space in Pacific Centre in Vancouver which is used something like three or four days a month. Surely this is a waste of taxpayers' money if we are having overcrowding in provincial courts and finding federal courts sitting idle much of the time. I would urge the Attorney-General to check into the possibility of renting space in that area.

Just one final thing, and it's an aside really, but certainly one of the very great difficulties in appearing in court by people who work a five-day week is the fact that courts do not convene on Saturdays. I'm wondering whether or not, particularly in the case of divorce courts, the Attorney-General would consider some arrangement whereby those courts could sit on Saturday - divorce courts, small-debt courts - so people who are working normally Monday through Friday would be able to attend those courts without having to take time off their work.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam Member, I was just looking at the points that you have raised. In the first point that you dealt with, you suggested removing bodily-injury claims arising out of motor-vehicle accidents to the Workers' Compensation Board. Well, I would think if you were recommending that course of action you would really be suggesting that any kind of bodily-injury claims be taken out of the courts and put into Workers' Compensation, thus eliminating the rule of negligence. It's a very interesting concept and it's one worthy of looking at.

Dealing with the family court and the maintenance, I'm sorry, I missed your point on that. Insofar as small claims are concerned, the jurisdiction of the small claims court is $1,000. We are giving serious consideration to whether or not that could in fact be raised. It's a point, as a matter of fact, that I first mentioned when I earlier came to this House many, many years ago. I think it used to be $100 and we brought it up to $1,000. By virtue of the inflating dollar I think there's a good argument to give full consideration to whether or not that sum should be increased. We considered that in depth, as you will recall, last year when we increased the jurisdiction of the county court from $10,000 to $15,000.

As for the federal court being empty, I presume -I don't have the specifics at my fingertips - that they are paying for the use of the court throughout the full period of the year, whether they are using it or not. I suppose you can say that we are being compensated for it, but if there's a facility that is available and is required and is not being utilized, I certainly agree with your general concept that surely something better can be done than having it remain empty.

As for the Saturday courts, again, from the point of view of availability of service for the general public, it seems that pretty well everything on Saturday has come to a full stop. We used to have mail on Saturday and now that is pretty well eliminated. All of the government offices in the country are closed on Saturday, and it's your recommendation that the courts would be open on Saturday in an isolated sense.

Well, at one time I gave a talk, speaking as an individual in government, of a 40-hour week. I received a lot of support for that from some areas, and a lot of people rejected it. So I suppose it's a question of philosophical attitude, but you seem to be warming to my side of the fence more so than to the other.

MRS. WALLACE: I would suggest to the Attorney-General that I'm not suggesting longer hours for judges. I'm simply suggesting staggered hours, which is certainly part and parcel of our whole society today.

The point that he missed on the maintenance in the family court.... What I'm suggesting is that, in co-operation with the federal income tax authorities, this maintenance could be recouped through the income tax form, which would provide information as to where these people are, who they are, how much they are earning and how much they are able to contribute towards maintenance. It's certainly an avenue that has been considered in many lights and it seems to me that this would free up the courts from having to deal with that particular facet, which is very time-consuming and involves a great deal of the judge's time when he should be dealing with the personal types of things relative to marriage breakdown.

Vote 59 approved.

On vote 60: Crown counsel, $7,644, 422.

MR. LAUK: The people of the city of Vancouver particularly and in the province generally were very concerned this year to see the handling by this Attorney-General of the Crown counsel problem as it emerged. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the conditions of the problem did not exist under the previous administration, but the previous administration certainly was committed to resolving the problem.

It seems to me that this is an example of this Attorney-General's virtual inability to make a decision. The problem was on his desk rather early on when he took office in January, 1976. He did nothing whatsoever about it, although he must have had the problem brought to his attention almost on a daily

[ Page 2996 ]

basis by his high officials. I'm sure that it was his ineptitude and his inability to make a decision that led to the very real crisis that occurred in this city this year.

Crown counsel were consolidated into regional structures for the efficiency of Crown prosecutions, not for the benefit of young lawyers. Throughout that situation we find in the turnover of Crown counsel that inexperienced people taking key positions in the Crown counsel's office were causing serious danger of a total breakdown in the prosecutions, particularly in the city of Vancouver.

Now the Attorney-General could not say, "well, this is a surprise to me, " or that he didn't have notice of the problem. He had notice of the problem as long ago as January, 1975. He also had notice of the solution.

AN HON. MEMBER: January, 1976.

MR. LAUK: In 1976. He also had notice of the solution, Mr. Chairman, since that time.

Now I've taken a look at the report on the Filmer inquiry, where the unfortunate young Crown counsel made certain allegations and an inquiry was properly entered into. Mr. Filmer was vindicated and the matter was settled. But entered among the transcripts, it seems to me, curious statements by the Deputy Attorney-General (Mr. Vickers) appear.

I'm quoting from page 4 of the report where Mr. Filmer gave evidence. He's talking about the Attorney-General. He's talking about a conversation he had with Mr. McKinnon, who is the complainant in this matter, and he said: "I indicated to Mr. McKinnon that the Deputy Attorney-General had told me, in his opinion, the chances of a contract proposal being accepted by the government were one in 100 against."

Now the government is the Attorney-General, and the contract proposal settlement of the Crown counsel issue was, and is, the solution. That Attorney-General has allowed the crisis to develop and yet publicly has remained unscathed.

I think it is absolutely a discredit to an otherwise mediocre career (laughter) for this Attorney-General to have sat on this problem for.... Well, it's no laughing matter, really, Mr. Attorney-General. You've had the solution. You contract certain key areas of Crown counsel work at fixed contract prices, and the amount of work then does not become a problem. It's not a fee-for-hourly-rate or fee-per-diem, or anything like that. The costs can be lessened considerably.

Well, the Attorney-General doesn't seem to be listening, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Of course I'm listening. I'm happy.

MR. LAUK: You are listening? Oh, it's Mr. Chairman who isn't listening, I see.

I don't know whether the Chairman is hearing a confession or the Clerk. I don't want to keep you two awake.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, it's incredible. I was absent with duties in the cabinet for a few years and not practising in the criminal courts, but I have found since returning that the years of experience of Crown counsel have greatly diminished. I was introduced to a young fellow who was called to the bar for about three years, and he said: "May I introduce myself, Mr. Lauk? I'm so-and-so, the senior Crown counsel here." Well, that's fine, but when you have to reinforce the quality of prosecution, you must have experienced counsel. When you have major indictable offences being prosecuted by people with one or two years' experience, that's incredibly bad. You do not get convictions that way, because you can be guaranteed that people who are charged with serious offences get good lawyers - sharp-tongued city slickers who can go in there and get acquittals, particularly from Crown counsel who are inexperienced.

It's a crying shame that you put the machinery of the state in gear to try and get these prosecutions, to get people who are properly charged convicted. They should be convicted, but because of technical defences, which defence counsel have every right to take advantage of but relate particularly to the lack of experience of the prosecutor, you've got people going free who are a danger to the property and persons of the public. That's a crime in itself, but the major crime, Mr. Chairman, is that the solution was on the Attorney-General's desk when he took his oath of office two years ago and he's done nothing whatsoever about it.

Now what is the complaint of the Crown counsel, particularly in the city of Vancouver? They say that they've just got called to the bar and they're making in their first year something that's not bad. Then, after two or three years, they say: "Well, we could be making much more in private practice." So they leave. Now this has always been part of the problem of the prosecutor's office in the city of Vancouver, but the time that it took for people to leave the prosecutor's office has been reduced greatly. Many distinguished lawyers have stayed that started with the prosecutor's office for five or six or seven years, and that's not bad. Then a few senior ones stay on as careerists in the prosecutor's office. But now we have them going after one and two and three years. Well, that's criminal. There's a real problem.

Now I admit, Mr. Chairman, I have a hard time sympathizing with lawyers who are making about $19,000 or $22,000 after two or three years. What's the rate - $14,000 or $19,000?

[ Page 2997 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: You don't make that yet, do you, Gary?

MR. LAUK: I don't make that yet, no. You know, I remember starting articles at $75 a month.

AN HON. MEMBER: And overpaid at that!

MR. LAUK: And overpaid at that! Then I worked for 12 hours a day in the legal office. I had to go and pour the sherry and biscuits, get the cleaning for my principal, and at night he gave me a flashlight to weed his garden - $75 a month! Well, I'm exaggerating slightly, Mr. Chairman, but it's pretty hard for me to be sympathetic to people one and two years at the bar complaining about $20,000 a year.

You know who I articled for, do you? (Laughter.) It was my year before the mast. (Laughter.) It wasn't that I didn't learn, particularly how to charge a fee. That's the first....

But, Mr. Chairman, the....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Bert.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the main thing here is that the solution is not on the bottom end. That is, the ordinary criminal prosecutions - the summary conviction offences, the preliminary hearings and so on, of medium or minor nature - can be handled by a young counsel. It's no problem as long as there is proper senior counsel supervision. But it's where it is serious indictable offences.... To give you an example in Victoria, a very distinguished former Clerk of this House was appointed to prosecute a case on a per them basis. It was a contract killer. There was a suggestion in-house, in the Attorney-General's department, that that prosecution and prosecutions like it take place in-house when your maximum experience prosecutor had four or five years. I say to you that you take a close look at the transcripts of that trial and you tell me that that conviction wasn't achieved by experienced Crown counsel. It was. An inexperienced Crown counsel with a very high-class defence counsel would have lost that case and a contract killer would be walking free in the streets, not on the merits but on sloppy prosecution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

M R. LAUK: Thank goodness that that distinguished member of the bar was able to take that case and achieve a conviction on behalf of the public. Now I have more to say on this and I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, pressing right along then.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It reminds me of the old story that the trial division has the absolute jurisdiction over being wrong and the court of appeal has the absolute jurisdiction over being right.

AN HON. MEMBER: That went over like a lead balloon.

MR. LAUK: Apropos of nothing.... (Laughter.) Has everything been straightened out now?

Interjections.

Mr. LAUK: Was that intervening business? I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do that now!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the standing orders of the House provide that the same motion cannot be moved without any intervening business, the intervening business being any business which can properly be recorded on the books, which means some kind of resolution.

However, the practice of the House is also that when we arrive at perhaps throe or four minutes before the hour of the normal adjournment, the motion can be entertained.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairperson, you're not suggesting that the standing orders of this House be abused by way of convenience by the fumbling of the ball by the government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. No such suggestion is made, hon. member. It's just a matter of practice of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. I'd like to speak to this vote, if I may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition on vote 60.

[ Page 2998 ]

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

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I'm someone else. I made a motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have not absolved the problem of intervening business, because....

AN HON. MEMBER: I've got a solution!

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no! (Laughter.) I've made a motion. Are you ruling it out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Premier.

MR. BARRETT: There's a motion on the floor!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, why don't we just work till 6 and the problem will be solved. Those who are used to going before quitting time can leave and those who work till 6 can stay.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I made a motion. Are you ruling my motion out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We have too many people speaking at the same time. The Leader of the Opposition insists we have a motion on the floor. The Chair never did accept the motion.

I recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition on vote 60.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, there has been intervening business, in my opinion, and my motion is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might cite the authorities which clarify for us what intervening business is. That business is "any business which may normally or logically be recorded as conclusions."

MR. BARRETT: Yes. It was a bit abnormal, but it was fairly normal considering the state of the government today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: You always want to leave early. Why can't you work till quitting time just once?

MR. BARRETT: It's your own House leader who wanted the motion, you jerks!

HON. MR. BENNETT: If you want to leave early, go! The Leader of the Opposition always wants to leave early.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Nelson-Creston. Are you on a point of order?

MR. NICOLSON: No, I'm rising to speak. I move that Mr. Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to the adjournment of the House this evening, I want to refer to a motion that was moved earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) who moved a motion to adjourn the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, or at least asked leave to move such a motion.

The motion moved by the hon. member deals with a matter of an impending crisis, as he sees it, in the fishing industry which will wipe out a number of jobs for fishermen and people engaged in the packing plants.

I can do no better, hon. member, than to refer to a parallel situation which dealt with unemployment -not in the fishing industry, but in the forest industry and in housing construction - a decision of this House which was handed down by the hon. Speaker of the House and recorded in our Journals November 1,1974.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Dowding.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker, in speaking to the request by the then hon. Leader of the Opposition, had this to say:

"I have given urgent consideration to the proposal by the hon. Leader of the Opposition for an emergency debate under standing order 35. I point out that May, in the 17th edition, which is the one that sets out all the rules with regard to such debate, very clearly states, with

[ Page 2999 ]

many examples on pages 364 through to 367, that the matter must be definite - that is, not a generalized matter but a specific matter that can be isolated into an emergency, a very important situation, but where it must be debated now. Those circumstances, as you will note through looking through the authorities, are very few. I will just recite what May said in general on the matter:

" 'It must be a single, specific matter, ', according to May, page 364. It must not be couched in general terms or cover a great number of cases; it is not offered when facts are in dispute or before they are all available; and it must not import any argument. In other words it must be something that everyone can agree, right away, instantly, that there is urgency of debate.

"Now there are many instances in all the authorities, as I found in the House of Commons in Ottawa and at Westminster, where cases of unemployment and matters of a general nature which are an economic situation have been dealt with. Indeed, in our own jurisdiction on numerous occasions Speakers have dealt with this matter, and I can do no better than to refer the hon. members to volume 2 of Speakers' Decisions. Mr. Speaker Pauline at page 69 ruled out the matter of unemployment for urgency debate, and stated it must be done upon notice. He repeated that decision in the same year again, on the ground that I quoted from May, because it was an emergency situation in the general economy. He stated that the unemployment situation had reached the most acute stage and become of great urgency and public interest but, nonetheless, because we are bound by these rules respecting generality of such a subject, it was not an appropriate one, according to May, for an emergency debate.

"Again, in 1923, this was ruled out of order on the same question of unemployment and also on a matter dealing with labour. All of these decisions are found in Volume 2 of Speakers' Decisions.

"In Ottawa the question of the effect on the footwear industry, which laid off thousands of employees, became of such urgent consideration that the same motion was sought for an emergency debate and there, again, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux rejected it. I can give you various examples of that, for instance on June 20,1970, in the House of Commons records, and all of them lead to the same result.

"Consequently I am bound to follow the precedents I have cited and in view of that, in my opinion, the matter does not fall within the scope of standing order 35."

I can do no better than to quote to the hon. member a previous ruling of this House on the same type of subject matter and suggest to him that his request does not fall within the scope of standing order 35.

MR. LEA: I appreciate your ruling and the way you've handled your duties, but at the same time I think this House had better examine the rules, because no matter what government is in....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no debate.

MR. LEA: I'm not debating it. No matter what government is in, there is never a debate on emergency situations allowed in this House by any Speaker. I think we have to examine that.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.