[ Page 2017 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings talk questions.

Document of allegiance at Vancouver General Hospital. Ms. Brown –– 2017

Increase in ferry fares for students. Mr. Lockstead –– 2017

Statistical information on heroin abuse. Mr. Gibson –– 2018

Property tax. Mr. Stephens –– 2018

Construction of Site C dam. Mr. Skelly –– 2019

Repayment of moneys for committee services. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 2019

Use of chemical sprays on Hydro, rights-of-way. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 2019

:committee of Supply; Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 56.

Mr. Cocke –– 2021

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2021

Mr. Barber –– 2021

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2023

Mr. Barber –– 2025

Mrs. Dailly –– 2026

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2029

Mr. Cocke –– 2031

On vote 57.

Mr. Cocke –– 2031

Mrs. Dailly –– 2033

On vote 58.

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

On vote 16.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2036

Mr. Macdonald –– 2039

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2042

Mr. Gibson –– 2043

Mr. Macdonald –– 2044

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2046

Royal assent to bills –– 2056

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2033

Ms. Brown –– 2033

Mrs. Dailly –– 2034

On vote 59.

On vote 60.

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are two friends of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Walker. They are old pioneers from the Union Bay area up-Island. They reside in the constituency of Victoria. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: In the precincts this afternoon are 10 students from the Takla Landing Day School from Takla Landing in my constituency. Unfortunately these young people are too young to sit with us in the gallery. Nevertheless I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) and I would share, I think, the welcome today in saying hello to the Cedar Hill Junior Secondary School students who are in the gallery. Some of them are constituents of his and others are from Saanich and the Islands constituency. Would the House make them welcome?

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have in the gallery today Mrs. R.E. Sells from Spillimacheen. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mrs. Sells to the Legislature.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, sitting on the floor of the House today is a special guest of our Legislative Assembly, the former Minister of Education for Manitoba and the former president of the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada. I would like the House to bid him a very warm welcome and to say now that we wouldn't, I'm sure, want to give him a deja vu experience by labouring Education estimates this afternoon.

Oral questions.

DOCUMENT OF ALLEGIANCE

AT VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister would tell us about the situation at VGH. It appears that government employees first of all, and now health workers, are being asked to sign away their rights to criticize. Would the minister advise the House as to whether or not he is prepared to put a stop to the practice now growing at the Vancouver General Hospital where nurses are being asked to sign a document of allegiance?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such document.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday of last week, I think, three directors of nursing at the Vancouver General Hospital were relieved of their duties and summarily fired because they refused to sign what they referred to as a "document of allegiance." If the minister is not aware of that, my question is: would the minister make himself aware of the existence of that document and then tell the House whether he is prepared to put a stop to this practice?

HON. W. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the member has such a document, I would be pleased to see it. I am not aware of one.

INCREASE IN FERRY FARES FOR STUDENTS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation responsible for B.C. Ferries to this Legislature. My question is: why was the fare for students on B.C. government ferries increased by 50 per cent until the end of September on June I?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, in order to bring a full answer to the member in regard to that policy matter, I will take it as notice.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A new question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps if it is a new question, we should give some courtesy to other members who are standing.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We certainly will. I've never been discourteous. I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the member is on his feet but we haven't recognized the member as yet.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm the member for Mackenzie. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: How soon they forget.

MR. SPEAKER: Seeing no other member on his feet, I recognize the member for Mackenzie. (Laughter.)

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister, I would like to know why the 50 per cent increase was imposed

[ Page 2018 ]

without a word of warning to those affected by way of general or government announcement. Why was this 50 per cent increase imposed without an advertisement?

STATISTICAL INFORMATION

ON HEROIN ABUSE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Regarding the debate over heroin abuse in British Columbia, which has been going on for the last year or so and longer, one of the problems has been the lack of sound statistical information. At best, in the White Paper the Alcohol and Drug Commission only presented estimates. Other than the 1974 report of CLEU and the estimates of the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs, has any other attempt been made at obtaining more accurate statistical information regarding the extent of the heroin problems in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether that question is in order. There is a bill on the floor dealing with heroin treatment, but the answer is yes.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on March 24,1977, it was announced that a six-member federal-provincial committee was to be formed to examine methods of dealing with British Columbia's heroin problems. It is my understanding that Mr. Bert Hoskins was the Ministry of Health representative on the committee. Could the minister please inform the House of the type of activities that committee was engaged in? Is it still active?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: On a further supplementary question, it is my understanding that on April 19,1977, a task force under the direction of that committee commissioned a more accurate statistical study of heroin use, and the information to be gathered was both qualitative and quantitative. The Ministry of Health representative on this task force was John Russell. Can the minister advise the House if he's personally aware that this study was started, and can he tell us if it has been completed?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sorry, it would be impossible for me to recall the exact dates that those kinds of things were done. There has been an ongoing study into the numbers, both through the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit and through the joint co-ordinating task force committee which was set up. Some numbers have been developed on an interim basis, but at this point that study is not complete.

PROPERTY TAX

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On April 10 of this year in the budget debate the minister said: "The additional $23.7 million provided to municipalities and regional districts by this new formula will allow them to improve their services and lower the property tax burden on both homeowners and business."

Now that the tax notices are arriving in the hands of homeowners and business owners, and now that it has become very obvious that many, many people - certainly in my constituency -have an increase in tax of up to 30 per cent and there are large increases in the property tax throughout the province, when can we expect this benefit of lower taxation that the minister promised?

HON. MR. WOLFE: For the member's benefit, the new taxation system only equalizes the property taxes throughout the province. It has not been the cause of any increased tax in itself, except to individual people where they were under the average. Or, in cases where they were over the average, they have allowed it to decrease. I think that question should be directed, in part, to municipal councils because their budgets reflect to the greatest degree on the impact of the property taxation system in this province.

The member made reference to the new revenue sharing system in which there is an increased revenue to municipalities of over 20 per cent on the granting system over the previous year's moneys accrued to them from the senior government. So I think we should recognize there has been a substantial increase in the moneys that have been paid aver to municipalities by virtue of the revenue sharing, and by virtue of the new ability to pay on the basis of local taxation on Crown buildings.

MR. STEPHENS: A supplementary question. Is the minister telling this House that the failure of the municipalities to lower the tax burden on homeowners is the total responsibility of the municipalities, and that this minister accepts no responsibility for the increase? Is that the position you're taking?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Perhaps the member should study more closely the new assessment system in terms of the total assessments of this province. I recommend that he do that, because it does not really impact on any individual

[ Page 2019 ]

municipality. There is a shift within the system but not in the total taxation assessment base throughout the province.

MR. STEPHENS: On a further supplementary, the question that I asked the minister, Mr. Speaker, was whether he and his government are prepared to accept any responsibility for the tax increase of many homeowners, having promised there would be a reduction. Are you putting the responsibility entirely on the municipal council or are you prepared to accept any of it? Now please answer the question directly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, what a dumb question!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think I've already answered the question. We have given the municipalities a substantial increased revenue, and it's up to them how they want to administer their own budgets.

CONSTRUCTION OF SITE C DAM

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Will the minister confirm that in the last two weeks Hydro has made an application for Crown land on the Peace River for the purposes of constructing the site C dam?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice.

While I'm on my feet I'd like to respond to a previous question.

MR. SPEAKER: A question taken on notice?

REPAYMENT OF MONEYS

FOR COMMITTEE SERVICES

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Victoria relating to members' expenses. He asked whether the ministry had received moneys from certain members having to do with the housing committee. My information is that there has been one cheque received as of October 24,1977, from the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) in the amount of $820.54. I'm not aware that there have been any other funds received by the ministry.

I would like further, Mr. Speaker, to answer another question which was addressed from another member opposite in my estimates, having to do with the non-use by B.C. Hydro....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's clarify that. Was the question asked in question period?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The question was subsequently asked in question period, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

USE OF CHEMICAL SPRAYS

ON HYDRO RIGHTS-OF-WAY

HON. MR. WOLFE: Incidentally, I was asked the question on April 25, just to identify it. The first question was: "Will B.C. Hydro be using toxic chemicals on rights-of-way this year?" The answer is: B.C. Hydro will be using herbicides on its powerline rights-of-way this year, as approved by the administrator of the Pesticide Control Act.

The next question is: "If toxic chemicals are to be used, in what areas?" The answer is: I have a list of B.C. Hydro's major vegetation management programmes for which permit applications have been submitted under the Pesticide Control Act for the use of herbicides during 1978. First of all, in metropolitan Vancouver - 1,019 acres of stump spraying and selective pellet application in the Pemberton, Garibaldi, Indian River and Sechelt areas for which permits have been received.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Table it!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the member wants this information.

Secondly, 670 acres of helicopter spraying at the north end of Lillooet Lake for which a permit has been received. Next, 180 acres of selective pellet application in the Sechelt area for which a permit is pending.

In the Fraser Valley - 480 acres of selective pellet application in the Harrison Lake and Boston Bar areas for which permits have been received; 140 acres of foliar spraying in the Hope-Agassiz area for which permit has been received.

On the north coast - 295 acres of helicopter spraying in the Terrace and Aiyansh areas for which permit has been received.

On Vancouver Island - 1,265 areas of stump and foliar spraying in the Duncan, Port Alberni, Nanaimo, Victoria and Port Hardy areas for which permits have been received.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, did the question ask for area to be identified?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes. The question was "in what areas?"

[ Page 2020 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the question allowed for this scope, please proceed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Two acres of stump spraying in the Saltspring Island area for which a permit is pending.

In the southern interior - 2,958 acres of selective pellet application, stump spraying and foliar spraying in the Merritt, Clinton, Vavenby, Kamloops, Revelstoke, Lumby and Seymour Arm areas for which permit has been received.

In the central interior - 2,600 acres of selective pellet application, stump and foliar spraying in the Fraser Lake, Quesnel, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, McLeod Lake, Pine Pass and Prince George areas for which permit has been received; also 340 acres of helicopter spraying in the Williams Lake area for which permit has been received.

The last question: "What chemicals are to be used and in what quantities?" I have a table here from B.C. Hydro records which I will enclose with the material I will table with the House. It includes lists, as of June 1,1978, of the quantities of chemical herbicides for which applications for permit to use have been submitted under the Pesticide Control Act.

This material took some gathering together and is up to date as of June 1,1978. So I think it will be helpful to the member in having the information brought up to date. I would like to include with that information a copy of the policy statement and regulations which Hydro has put out last year governing their use of herbicides on powerline rights-of-way. I recommend all members to give attention to these.

I ask leave to table these documents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We can't table them in question period but perhaps later.

Hon. members, perhaps a suggestion from the Chair would be that questions which elicit lengthy and detailed answers might better be placed on the order paper. We can conserve time in question period for that reason.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask leave to table these documents, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this: you recognized the answer was the answer to the question from the member. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that was not the information that was sought. Specific information like that should always be tabled. That was an abuse of question period - nothing more, nothing less. He wanted to take up the time. He was afraid of the next question.

HON. MR. WOLFE: On the same point of order, it's clearly obvious that detailed questions of that nature would much better be asked on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the suggestion is well taken, hon. members. It's a little difficult for the Chair, quite frankly, once a question is accepted. By the way, the Chair allows as many questions as possible. Once the question is accepted, we must then accept the answer. It is difficult for the Chair to anticipate the length of the question by the very nature of the question itself.

MR. COCKE: I had no trouble interpreting the member for Mackenzie's question. He was asking for the general answer and wanted a regional answer to the question. When any ordinary minister, or any minister that's had any kind of couth around here, answers the question, he can answer it in detail by tabling it afterwards.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps the Chair can assist in trying to keep question period in order.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I think we may have a way to clear this up. Obviously the government is anxious to answer questions, and I'd like to ask leave of the House that for the remainder of this parliament the question period be extended by 15 minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that a proposal of such a nature might better be put as a notice of motion, rather than as a substantive motion, because it would substantially change the standing orders.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is in order at any time to ask leave for the suspension of rules for any intention.

MR. SPEAKER: I did not understand that he asked for a suspension of the rules.

MR. BARRETT: He asked for leave, Mr. Speaker, and that is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Was the question "leave for rules to be suspended"? Is that the understan-

[ Page 2021 ]

ding?

Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, just on the previous point of order. It's sometimes not possible to determine on the part of the questioner just how long in detail the answer will be, because we simply have no idea how long a list might be. It seems to me that on previous occasions Speakers have advised those replying to questions that if their answer is going to be a long one, they table it rather than read it out.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is well taken. It is difficult for the Chair to determine how long the answer is going to be, hon. member.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 56: basic education K-to-12 Programme - $591,968.

MR. COCKE: That's K-to-12 for the Attorney-General. That's kindergarten to 12 for those in the gallery.

I asked the minister last night on this particular vote why it was that the education support services vote went down from $427,248 to $321,324. Now that's a $100,000 reduction in that vote I note the vote for education support services includes services to native Indian education and other services to disadvantaged children. It strikes me that that's the last vote that one would expect to be reduced. The minister said last night that he was , going to check to find out why it was reduced. Has he found out overnight?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before I recognize the minister, we're not used to having this many members in the chamber. Perhaps, if they're going to be here, they could keep their conversations down.

HON. MR. McGEER: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the motion to adjourn had barely been uttered last evening when we had the answer after a delay of about 45 seconds. The fact is that it doesn't represent a reduction in the numbers of people who are actually employed by the ministry; they are the same. This was a series of unfilled positions that were simply struck off the roster; they never had been filled.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about a taxpayers' revolt that is currently underway in British Columbia. I want to point out that it's an interesting phenomenon that today, June 6, is the day when in the state of California electors will be determining whether or not to accept what has become known as Propositions 13 or 8. Proposition 13 in that state will allow, if passed this evening by its electors, an across-the-state reduction in all property taxes of 60 per cent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I should....

MR. BARBER: Oh, I'm getting to the point very rapidly, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, before you interrupt the Chair, the Chair is going to interrupt you to remind you that on vote 56 we're discussing one of the sub-votes under the minister. It's for a substantial amount of money, but strict relevance would be appropriate. While we're all interested in what is happening in the state of California, it is hardly under the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Education. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: I will be talking in a moment about the township of Spallumcheen, which is refusing to pay its tax for education purposes this year. The mayor is on record as saying they're doing so. It clearly falls within this vote, Mr. Chairman, as the revolt on the part of the taxpayers of the township of Spallumcheen is a revolt against the onerous, burdensome taxes imposed on them by Social Credit.

I was merely pointing out that it's an ironic coincidence that today in the state of California, for good or bad, as you may view it, the voters are choosing through Propositions 13 or 8 to reduce all of their property taxes by 60 per cent, in the case of Proposition 13, or their home property taxes by roughly 30 per cent, in the case of Proposition 8. What we have observed elsewhere is that increasingly the homeowner is refusing to accept an unfair burden.

During the last campaign, Social Credit promised to reduce the local property tax burden for education purposes. They ran around this province telling taxpayer after taxpayer and homeowner after homeowner that if they were elected - only trust them - they would reduce the local property tax burden for education purposes. What we are debating under this vote is that in the last three years Social Credit has done just the opposite. In

[ Page 2022 ]

the last three years the local tax burden for education has increased 78 per cent, thanks to Social Credit.

We draw the particular attention of this committee to this vote because this is what principally indicates the level of support, such as it is, granted by the province for local school purposes. It has gone up 78 per cent in three years under Social Credit. We have now learned that in the township of Spallumcheen the mayor, on behalf of his council, has indicated a firm refusal to pay a bill of $125,000 for public education purposes. Their school tax levy in district 21 this year increased by 41 per cent. They are refusing to pay. They will not collect the taxes on behalf of the school district. I'm further informed that the district is now contemplating court action to compel them to do so.

One of the principal reasons why the township and the school district are in that position is because of the abject and, to say the least, hypocritical failure of this coalition government to honour a campaign promise to reduce the local tax burden for education purposes. Even with a straight face it's hard to say that they haven't kept the promise; they have broken it repeatedly and deliberately.

Let me say again that the local tax burden for school purposes has gone up 78 per cent since this group was elected and came to office on December 22,1975. Now the taxpayers of the town of Spallumcheen - and we predict there will be others - are refusing to pay this onerous and unfair burden. They have recognized what we pointed out during that campaign: the promises of this coalition cannot be believed. They have not been honoured; they have only been broken again and again and again.

What I want to know of the minister is what action he or his government has taken, if any, to compel the township of Spallumcheen to pay this exorbitant education tax. I would remind the committee again that their tax this year increased 41 per cent and they are refusing to pay the resulting bill of $125,000. 1 want to ask the minister what power in law he or the executive council has to compel payment. If they have power in law to do so, will he use that power? If so, how and when?

I further want to ask the minister whether or not he has any intention to provide financial assistance to the township of Spallumcheen and School District 21 in order to make good the difference which clearly they feel the property taxes cannot. It's $125,000 and they say they don't have it. It's a 41 per cent increase and they say they can't afford it. It's the result of that minister's education policies. And we say we don't support them.

I want to know as well from the minister whether or not he himself, as Minister of Education, is prepared to intervene on behalf of School District 21 to compel the township of Spallumcheen to collect these taxes and to pay those bills. It he's not, is he prepared to sit idly by if other townships arid other municipalities and other cities find themselves in the same apparently desperate position that the township of Spallumcheen finds itself in today? The minister can't have it both ways. He can't talk about the virtue of local autonomy and then allow a school district like School District 21 to go down the drain because the municipality won't collect the taxes for them. His colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , can't talk about the virtues of local autonomy -much as he ignores them - and then pretend that the township of Spallumcheen has no authority and responsibility and duty in law to collect these taxes on behalf of the school district.

The Social Credit government can't have it both ways at all. They can't promise during a campaign to lower school taxes and then in office raise them by 78 per cent in three years. The mill rate for school purposes has only gone up under this minister. The mill rate for school purposes under the previous minister was going down. Our government announced a five-year programme to reduce dependency on the property tax for school purposes. They were into the second year of that programme and it was widely regarded and well respected and admired. Were we still in office, that programme would be considerably further advanced today. Well, we're not. That's what the voters chose and that's fine. The problem is that the voters also chose to believe a promise that you have chosen not to keep. They chose to believe your promise when you said that you'd reduce school taxes and you'd reduce the burden on the homeowner for school purposes. They chose to believe you and they were wrong because your promise was utterly insincere and has not been kept. It's been broken over and aver again deliberately, callously and cynically. You never even intended to keep it in the first place. And school taxes have gone up 78 per cent in the last three years. Now the first, but surely not the last municipality, the township of Spallumcheen, is simply refusing to pay it. They can't afford your policies. They can't afford your Social Credit economics. They can't afford what you want to do and they're refu-

[ Page 2023 ]

sing to pay it.

We on this side of the House recognize that there's a limit. We recognize that the homeowner can only pay so much and then no more. We recognize that, if you tax too much, you're confiscating the home and you're stealing it away. We recognize that the state has no reason and no right to do that and that people have a fundamental right to own their own homes. Homeownership is one of the safeguards of liberty. It's a safeguard that is being taken away by this administration through an endlessly increasing tax burden that they cannot afford to pay. We respect the fact that this safeguard of liberty, the ownership of one's own home, is in the British tradition of doing things, is valuable and must be protected. We recognize that the centralizing, heavy hand of this government increasing taxes 78 per cent in three years makes home ownership in this province an unaffordable proposition.

Let me point out again that under our administration we were well embarked on a five year plan to reduce significantly - I gather that down to 25 per cent was the object - the burden on the homeowner. It was a policy that worked; it was a policy which you in your promises endorsed and which you in your performance have ignored. It's a good policy. People can only support and afford so much, then no, more, and that's all there is to it. The dollars are drying up and the individual homeowners can't afford to pay the burden under your government.

Anyway, your government when in opposition and your government when campaigning promised to reduce the tax burden. Do you deny that it's gone up under your administration? Would this group pretend for a moment that the school tax burden had actually declined under Social Credit? Would even this arrogant minister try to pull that wool over these eyes? Of course not. He couldn't do it. One of the happy attributes of this minister is at least he has a sense of humour. Even if he tried to do it, he couldn't keep a straight face. He can't even do it now. Look, he's smiling already; he knows what it means. There he goes - sure enough, there's the smile.

What we recognize on this side of the House is that the mayor of the township of Spallumcheen has no doubt in his own mind, nor does his council, that there is good reason to refuse to pay exorbitant, unfair and unaffordable taxes. They're in a tight position; and, simultaneously and paradoxically, so is their school district. They're both in trouble. We recognize and respect the position that each of them has taken. We recognize that a 41 per cent increase in one year is intolerable for anyone. Perhaps even the occasional millionaire on the other side would find it difficult.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a new one today.

MR. BARBER: There's a new one today, that's right - the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) . Congratulations on the sale.

It is, to say the least, a dangerous proposition that the state should have the right to tax people out of their own homes by virtue of these extraordinary and unaffordable increases. Our questions for the minister, in conclusion for this part of the debate, are: What action, if any, has the government taken to compel the township of Spallumcheen to pay this education tax? What power does the minister or any of his colleagues on the executive council have to compel payment? Will the Minister of Education provide any additional financial assistance whatever to the township of Spallumcheen, or to School District 21 itself, in order to overcome this apparent impasse between those two authorities? Does the minister himself have the power to compel payment? If so, will he use it, when, and under what circumstances? We'd be glad for his answers.

HON. MR. McGEER: One of the unfortunate habits of the opposition which leads to prolonged debate in this House is the manner of canvassing a subject thoroughly during a minister's estimates and then canvassing it all over again during the individual vote. Now I am going to respond to the member, but, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to consider whether or not we need to go through point after point after point in the Premier's estimates, in question period, during the minister's estimates and then during individual votes, because clearly it's an abuse of the House when this kind of thing goes on.

I'd feel much more sympathetic, Mr. Chairman, towards the member opposite had he been here during the time when this particular matter was being discussed in the House. But the trouble is that people go down to their offices, or wander up to their constituency, or go shopping, or stay out in the sun, or whatever, miss a debate completely, don't follow what's in Hansard or in the newspaper accounts, and then come and repeat it all in the House again. I think we ought to end this kind of abuse of the House's time.

I am not going to go at length over all the matters that were covered in this House before, but loll say this, Mr. Chairman. First of all, with respect to Proposition 13 in

[ Page 2024 ]

California, it's a very interesting subject and I think, like the member opposite, that it is going to be the first wave of a massive taxpayer revolt - a revolt against bureaucracy, all the professional groups that are not producers in society but are consumers. Somehow it has whipsawed society and governments to the point where taxes have become unreasonable.

If there is anything that I was criticized for by the members opposite at the school trustees meeting in Prince George, and at the B.C. Teachers Federation meeting in Vancouver, it was for preaching restraint in the matter of school spending. That's what they were criticizing me for then. How hypocritical can they be? They're standing up in the House, day after day after day, criticizing me for not spending more. Now that party has to make up its mind. Are they for fiscal responsibility in matters of education or are they not?

Now getting back to Proposition 13, Mr. Chairman, and the situation as it is in California, the revolt is about property taxes that are roughly 3 per cent. I'll say this: unwelcome as the property taxes are in British Columbia - and surely they are unwelcome - we all pay them and we're just as annoyed as the people for Spallumcheen and the city council. I don't like high taxes. I don't like high property taxes; I do not like high sales taxes or any other kind of taxes. But when the budgets go up and up and up there are only the taxpayers to pay for them, and that's why some people are just a little bit responsible and preach restraint occasionally.

I'd have more admiration for the members opposite if just once we could hear that kind of talk. But, Mr. Chairman, if Proposition 13 passes and there is this tremendous slash in property taxes in California down to I per cent, their property taxes will get down to the vicinity of what our own are in British Columbia today - approximately 1.2 per cent, excluding the homeowner grant. Our property taxes are high. But compared with California, we o re still in not too bad a shape.

Now I'd like to say another word about the operating budgets of schools, because this is basically what we're talking about in this particular vote. Under the NDP, Mr. Chairman -I want you to listen to this very carefully, and I hope this is the last time we will have to discuss this matter in the House - the first year they were in office, there was a leap in the gross operating school budgets in British Columbia of 20 per cent. The next year it was 27.5 per cent, the next year, 18.4 per cent. That was the record of the NDP when they were in office.

Mr. Chairman, they have gone up the last two years - 9.5 per cent and 8.7 per cent - but not at the urging of the provincial government. We weren't the ones paying off our friends in the B.C. Teachers Federation to hire 2,500 more teachers in British Columbia. That's around the neck of your party and that former Minister of Education, and you have the hypocritical nerve to come in this House and blame the high cost of schools on this government. We've been preaching restraint. You spent like fools in the three years that you were in office with no responsibility of any kind, and now the pigeon has come home to roost and who are the first ones to come into this House and complain day after day after day?, Why, it's the NDP.

I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman. If they ever go into office again in British Columbia, what they did before will seem like small potatoes to what they will do again. They're not only incompetent, they're hypocritical.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it's not my responsibility as the Minister of Education to enforce the law. The Attorney-General knows full well whose responsibility it is to see that the laws of British Columbia are obeyed. Why do not you advise your member over there before he stands up in debate whose responsibility it is to do that kind of thing? Remedies for people who break the law are not found by Ministers of Education. The law is there; it's passed by the Legislature. If those people refuse to observe the laws, there are ways of dealing with them, but that's outside the Ministry of Education.

Mr. Chairman, we're discussing this particular vote. The amount is here. It will not be increased. But what I would advise to the school district in question and to the municipal council in question is: observe restraint, keep the budgets in line. People are disturbed about the high cost of education and about the high property taxes. The student population in that particular district is down 1.3 per cent this year and yet the budget is up 10.4 per cent. This is the problem that we're facing all over British Columbia: declining student populations and school budgets that don't take that into account but, in some cases, hire even more teachers than before.

We're not urging this as a policy, Mr. Chairman. We're preaching restraint, and so we say to all of those school districts and to their municipal councils: "We're not setting the budgets." If it's their decision to trim the budgets, even over what they have estimated them to be as of this moment, we won't discourage that. We think that it's appropriate. No, Mr. Chairman, we think that it's

[ Page 2025 ]

overdue. So we're not going to criticize a school board if it decides this year perhaps its budget is a little rich. Maybe more attention should be paid to the taxpayer, whether that taxpayer is a provincial taxpayer or a local taxpayer. It's the same individual and it comes out of his paycheque. It's time that those who have access to the taxpayers' wallet, as school boards do and as we do at the provincial level, began to respect the taxpayers' wishes.

That's why I think it would be appropriate for these school districts to pay close attention, even now, to their coming budgets and see if they can't find economies in them.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the minister's answer is totally unacceptable. He is hoping that his rhetoric will cover up his roadwork. His roadwork has been bad in the last three years. He has the nerve to criticize this opposition for taking every parliamentary opportunity under question period, under the Premier's estimates and now under his, to ask questions about the devastating course of Social Credit economic policies since they came to power. He says somehow, for some reason, we have no right to do that. He hopes his rhetoric will cover up his roadwork, and it won't.

During opposition they promised, and during the campaign promised again, to reduce - not increase - the burden on the homeowner for school purposes. What have they done? They didn't just ignore the promise, they broke it, year after year after year since coming to power. When they came to power the average mill rate for school purposes in British Columbia was 26 mills. This year it is 39 mills. That is an increase of 50 per cent.

Additionally, through the Minister of Finance, they have, under the assessment procedure, increased by 20 per cent that average assessment for the average homeowner in British Columbia. The minister will shout and scream as much as he likes, play bad guy and good guy alternately in order to get his estimates through, and hope to cover up the shameful fact of Social Credit. They have increased the burden on the homeowner for school taxes and they promised to decrease it. The minister can't have it both ways. He cannot tell us how much he would like it if only the taxes were reduced.

The problem is he does like it. He's in power. He's had his chance and he blew it. The taxes have gone up; they haven't been reduced at all. They've gone up. What's he talking about? Who on earth is he trying to kid? Here he is beating his heart - beat, beat, beat.

"Oh, I would like the taxes to go down. Gosh, I would like it if they didn't charge so much. Wouldn't it be pleasant if I didn't have to burden the taxpayers as much as I do? Oh, I would certainly like to do it that way, " he solemnly assures us. The problem is, he's in the cabinet. He's the second Premier. He's the Liberal leader in the coalition cabinet. He's got a lot of power. He could use it to reduce the burden on the local homeowner for school purposes.

He should, because at that level, in many regards, it's an unfair tax that a lot of people can't pay. At the provincial level it becomes, in some other regards, the more fair tax which more people can share in and, being more broadly based, is more fairly applied. That's the difference.

Our party recognized that the broadly fairer application at the provincial level of support for school purposes reasonably should come to be. It reasonably was coming into being. Then this crew came in and turned it all around, contrary to their promises.

The minister's answer is utterly unacceptable. He has increased the average burden by 78 per cent; he has increased the school mill rate from 26 to 39, an increase of 50 per cent since he took office. The minister's rhetoric is valueless, worthless and holds no remedy at all for the problem at hand.

I asked him specifically: does he intend to make any kind of grant to district 21 in order to overcome this. The minister says no. What will your government do? Will you instruct the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to collect those taxes? Have you advised him to do so? If so, when? And what advice did you give precisely? Are we shortly to expect an announcement from the Attorney-General that he will be prosecuting the mayor and council of the township of Spallumcheen for their refusal to pay your taxes which they can't afford? It's a 41 per cent increase for them this year, thanks to you and your mill rates, thanks to you and your taxation policies. Blaming it totally on the school district is unreasonable and unfair and it's untrue as well. You're the one who has increased the mill rate; you're the one who has seen the provincial contribution diminish in proportion aver the years since you took office. You can't blame them. It's not fair and it's dishonest to do so. They themselves do not have every choice in the matter. You, provincially and finally, have virtually all the choices in these matters.

So what are you going to do? Are you going to leave them to fight it out in some civil suit in the court? Are you going to leave both sides to embarrass one another over a prosecu-

[ Page 2026 ]

tion? Are you going to leave the council hiring a lawyer to defend itself from the school district hiring another lawyer? What kind of leadership is that?

Each of these authorities is in a difficult position. The budget of the one has gone up by 41 per cent; the tax burden of the other is up by $125,000. Neither can afford to operate under your rules. You're the minister; you're the government. Forget the speeches; tell us what you're going to do. If you've advised the Attorney-General, tell us what advice you've given him. If he's going to act, tell us when we may expect the announcement. If you're just going to leave these people to fight it out by themselves, you're showing no leadership at all. You're doing a very disappointing job as minister and it's no job that we want done. It's no job you should be doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the next member, I'd like to make several points. One is that many of the matters were previously covered under the minister's own office estimate. This particular vote is basic education kindergarten to grade 12. Perhaps it would be more relevant if we kept it specifically relevant at this time.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I know that the Minister of Education does not want to hear this repeated, but I think that within this vote we have a right to talk about the increased burden on the taxpayer. The whole vote is made up of grants to the public schools of this province.

This minister is one of the most hypocritical, arrogant, irresponsible ministers who has ever sat in that portfolio.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, we're already covered my personality during the minister's vote. This is K-to-12.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is very well made. Perhaps I could read a citation from Sir Erskine May about temperate language, but perhaps with that just that warning, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) could continue.

MRS. DAILLY: Then I have leverage to use some other descriptive words, Mr. Chairman. My feeling is basically that this minister has purposely created a warfare between the school boards of this province and the municipalities. He's the one who's responsible for what is going on in this small town in the Okanagan Valley, and it's only symbolic of what is going to come in other districts in this province, all because of his policy and his government's policy.

And you know, Mr. Chairman, to hear this minister stand up in reply to the very fine points made by the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and place the blame again on the school boards of the province is why I say he is hypocritical.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I didn't place the blame on the school boards of British Columbia; I placed the blame on the NDP.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When members are seeking the floor on a point of order, they should try to ensure that in fact have a valid point of order. Perhaps next time we would ask the member to quote which standing order it is they're offended by.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, any minister of this province who stands up in this House, as the Minister of Education does, and says the reason the school districts in this province have high taxes this year is because they are not restraining themselves with their budgets.... Is he trying to suggest that this is not blaming the school boards? He says it over and over again, everywhere he goes, to take the heat off his own inadequacies as a minister and his government's inadequacies in dealing with the financing of education in this province.

He has said over and over again for the record that the school boards of this province must restrain themselves or else they'll have to be faced with the situation which we find in this district near Vernon.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to standing order 43. We are on vote 56, basic education kindergarten to grade 12, and it is common knowledge to this House through both the media and our own information that the concern in the Spallumcheen area largely arises from the increased costs at the regional college level. That was on the news, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that it would not be proper to interrupt the member's speech to bring up that point of order at this time. Perhaps if the member wants to make that point, she could wait until such time as the member for Burnaby North has finished. The member for Burnaby North please continue, and perhaps we can arrange for that interruption.

MRS. JORDAN: On another point of order,

[ Page 2027 ]

standing order 43 addresses itself to irrelevance and repetition. I believe through your own words it has been stated that this debate is not only repetitious - it is very repetitious - but irrelevant as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to listen to the member's speech before I can determine whether or not it is in fact irrelevant. So far I haven't detected irrelevancy in this member speaking. The whole Minister of Education's debate is becoming rather tedious, but we'll bear with it.

MRS. DAILLY: On the point of irrelevancy, I think that member who comes from this area herself should be quite aware - when we mention her area, her ears usually prick up -that this is the first time we've brought up this case in this Legislature today. So there's nothing about repetition in bringing up a major concern that I'm sure that member will be getting up on her feet and discussing with us today.

I also want to point out our concern over what's happening in this area. When the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) suggested that the reason is just the regional college increase, I want to read a quote from Parkinson, the mayor. He says: "The school tax levy was increased because of a higher Okanagan budget, increased mill rates to landowners imposed by Education minister Pat McGeer."

That's the reason for the increase. To just select one area, I think that member had better go back up there to her district and have a talk with the school district and with the mayor.

When the Minister of Education again was asked what he was going to do about this problem, I have his usual quote here, which we have heard all year long. "McGeer denied that the province was to blame for the tax increase. 'It's their school board that set the budget, not the Ministry of Education.' "

Now the member for Victoria made it very clear - and I'm not going to repeat that part again - that it's quite obvious to the people in that area and to the people of British Columbia that it doesn't matter how restrained the school boards of this province are, will be in the future and have been; this minister is going to impose increased basic mill-rate levies on them anyway. That's the pattern of this minister.

The boards of this province have co-operated with this minister. Their budgets which they have presented since he became minister have been very well restrained. During the period that we were in office, as I mentioned in earlier speeches, not only did expenditures go up in the educational area but they went up in the private sector, they went up in all areas of government and they continued at an increase of 300 per cent. So for the minister to refer to that is a very specious argument.

This minister cannot go on blaming the school boards of this province. I want to get it on record once again: they have restrained themselves. It is this minister who hasn't. He seems to have delighted in imposing on the school boards of this province increased levies ever since he came into office. A 78 per cent increase on the taxpayers of this province has been imposed by that minister in this government through increased basic levies and through increased tax assessments. Yet he stands up in this House and his only answer to it is restraint from the school boards.

He has a serious situation in this district, and as Minister of Education he cannot abrogate his responsibility to do something about it. They are in trouble; they need help. But unfortunately, I think the minister hopes that the two groups - the school board and the council - will continue to fight together and take the heat off the minister and his government. But it's not going to wash. If he's tired of it being repeated here, I can assure him that we intend to do our job as members of the official opposition and let the people of British Columbia know exactly how this Social Credit government has reneged on their promises to help them out in their tax burdens.

There is one specific question I want to ask the minister and that's to do with the impact which the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) brought up. She said that the basic problem was the increase for regional colleges and community colleges. I have a specific question to him, and he never answered it yesterday. I just want to repeat it once again.

When are you going to designate the community colleges of British Columbia so that they can receive 100 per cent financing? Is this another Socred promise that has gone down the drain? , On top of school taxes we find that school boards are imposed with these extra regional college taxes. Yet this minister said a year ago he was going to take it over entirely on a provincial basis. He has only designated one to date, and it is the one that already gets 100 per cent financing. So this is my question to the minister, which he conveniently ignored yesterday: when can the school boards and the community colleges of this province expect the promised designation and expect the 100 per cent?

[ Page 2028 ]

MR. BARBER: First of all, I want to simply go on record as expressing my disappointment that the government of British Columbia will not provide direct financial help or support to the Open House Canada programme. I recently corresponded with the deputy minister. I realize that he is just following orders like deputy ministers do, but his letter made it very clear that this government is totally unwilling to participate in a Canada-wide programme that rebuilds a sense of Canadian identity among young people. It's called the Open House Canada programme. This government indicated in writing through its deputy minister they will pay not a nickel - nothing - in support of it. I think that is absolutely shameful. I was involved recently with one junior secondary school in Victoria that was itself hoping that the government might come through. They did in their usual fine Socred fashion: they came through with nothing.

I want to talk about declining enrolment, which is a problem in my own district, and I want to talk about the Public Schools Act. If I may very briefly read from the Act, under "general administration, " Part II, No. 6 (7) says: "The ministry may authorize the board of any school district to close a school if the board shows to the satisfaction of the ministry that the action requested is necessary and that the residents of the area in which the school is located have been made aware of the need for such action." Without doubt, in many school districts in British Columbia there is declining enrolment. There is declining enrolment because of population decline. There is declining enrolment because the school system is so utterly unattractive to some kids that they drop out. Indeed it has been calculated by friends of mine active in school boards across the province that if the 20,000 kids who dropped out last year had not dropped out at all, we would have a problem with burgeoning enrolment and not declining enrolment at all. The problem remains. Declining enrolment of 20,000 a year via drop-outs and declining enrolment because of declining population in births years ago make it quite clear that some school districts are in a very difficult position.

In the way of a policy statement, what I want to understand from the minister is whether or not his ministry is actively encouraging school districts to close schools in the face of declining enrolment. Most particularly, what I would like the minister to do is table with the House today the written criteria applied when school boards ask for his authority under the Public Schools Act to close down schools. Under the regula-

tions - I have here No. 8372; I'll share a copy with the minister but I'm sure he is familiar with it - it simply says the ministry may authorize the board but the board has to provide information, the minister has to apply criteria, the answers have to be clear, and the local residents have to be persuaded. As I read the regulations, it's perfectly straightforward what is going on here. As I read the regulations, the ministry must be applying some criteria to these school closures. What I want to know is what criteria he applies and how. Is it a process that occurs in writing? If so, would the minister care to table documents to demonstrate it? In my own school district No. 61, again we are caught between devils and deep seas. While we are simultaneously trying to rebuild the neighbourhoods, we are apparently closing neighbourhood schools which are one of the active centrepieces of a sound neighbourhood.

The school district is in trouble because enrolment is going down. They have done a facility study and they are making, for good or bad, the best choice of it they can. Neighbourhoods over and over again are up in arms, as are the parents and the students in these schools. Again the contradiction is apparent: you can't support the rebuilding of cities' neighbourhoods and at the same time close down the cities' neighbourhood schools. It's very difficult to do that. So I want to understand from the minister what criteria he applies and how. Because I'm sure it must be in writing, would he table in writing with us an example or two of that actual application of criteria?

I'd further like to know whether or not the minister is familiar with the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia report on declining enrolment. In particular, is he familiar with its recommendations 22, 22 (a) , 23 and 25, which, if he wishes, I will read into the record? I expect it is not necessary. They are particularly concerned with the impact of school closures, the criteria to be applied to them in order to justify and allow them, and with the impact of those closures of neighbourhood schools on the the neighbourhoods themselves.

Recommendation 18 is an extremely important one. Very briefly, I will read it into the record. It's from the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia: "When school enrolments fall, the reduction of support services to individual schools and the elimination of school entitlements to specialist personnel should be carried out by increments in order to minimize negative effects on school programmes."

The fact is that I am informed, and so are

[ Page 2029 ]

the school districts across the province, it's not been incremental at all. It's been overnight. It's been whack, chop, it's done with. No future, no increment, no graduation, no nothing. It's just over and done with. It's an important and sensitive recommendation and I would like the minister's opinion on it.

There have been further cutbacks in school services and I talked about those last night, particularly in the arts. But I wonder if the minister himself can inform the House today whether or not there is an appeal procedure regarding school closures. If a district, feeling financially bound and having no choice but to close, should in a sense wish to appeal its own otherwise inevitable decision, can they come to the minister for special support? If so, what kind of a hearing will they get and what support will they receive?

If a group of parents who are concerned that a board somewhere or another in the province has not heard them properly wishes to appeal a decision to close a school, how can they do that and when, and in whose offices? How does that appeal work? How could they make it work for them? Does the minister believe, if there are no appeal procedures, that there should be? Would it be perhaps more fair for districts and parents and teachers alike to have an appeal procedure. The Public Schools Act regulations make it clear that the ministry finally decides before determining whether or not to close down a school.

Again, these have been questions of great conflict and great controversy, not just here in School District 61 in Victoria, although obviously that's been well publicized, but in other districts as well, particularly, I'm told, in Vancouver and New Westminster.

The Ministry of Education in Ontario, has, I'm told, a somewhat more sensitive and flexible approach to school closures. Taken carefully and cautiously over a period of time, they apply graduated criteria. They diminish services on a graduated basis and when they make an announcement of school closure it is, I'm told, and I stand to be corrected, subject to appeal. I'm sorry I only have that information indirectly. I don't have the original document at hand. I am told by people active in the field that in Ontario they have learned, with far greater flexibility, suppleness and sensitivity, how to deal simultaneously with the problems of revitalizing neighbourhoods and neighbourhood schools in the face of the other problem of declining enrolment.

Those are my questions to the minister. Is there an appeal procedure? If not, should there be one? If so, how does it work? What are the criteria presently applied now before you approve, under the Act and its regulations, a school board closing down a school? Are those made public? If so, will you make them public today? For a school board that chooses, in a gradual and sensitive fashion, to wind down part of its system, are they given any financial assistance at all in order to do that? Are they given any special assistance of any kind in order to maintain a school in a particular way for a particular need that may serve the community far more broadly and subtly than may otherwise be recognized by a simple across-the-board overnight closure of a school? I would be grateful for the minister's comments on the whole policy area of school closures in the face of declining enrolment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just dealing quickly with the matters raised by the member for Burnaby North. She isn't here but perhaps the other members could explain to her. We've declared six independent institutes so far under the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act. We will be moving as rapidly as it is practical to do so to name the remaining colleges and post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. It's not something which can be organized overnight, either from the ministry or from the institution's point of view. It's understandable, I would think, that there would be some increase in costs in these post-secondary institutions, because they are still experiencing very rapid growth, both in terms of numbers and the variety of programmes that they offer. This is in contrast to the primary and secondary schools in the province, which are not expanding but on the other hand are declining. This is the part that is so disturbing about the budgets.

I'll read, as I have done many times before, what the total school district budgets are in British Columbia, from 1973 to 1978. They've gone like this: $505 million, $611 million, $770 million, $899 million, $972 million, $1,078 million. Now while this increase has been taking place, the populations have been declining. The job that has to be done is smaller than it was five years ago. Yes, the provincial government budget has more than doubled in this time but, Mr. Chairman, almost all other aspects of government endeavour have expanded in that period of time. Completely new programme s have been taken on such as the intermediate care programme, a very expensive new programme providing additional services. I don't need to run down the list of all the new programmes that have been introduced that require public funds.

[ Page 2030 ]

I suppose one could have lower taxes and leave people hanging on the ropes in time of need. But really, I think the taxpayers have legitimacy to their complaints when the school budgets are going up at the rate they are and yet the actual job that has to be done is shrinking.

Now when you get to the colleges, it's a different story, because that population bulge is still moving through the final stages of high school and on into the post-secondary system. They too are going to be experiencing in the next two or three years a static enrolment. I've certainly to the best of my ability given warnings loud and clear that they're going to have to tighten their belts, because they won't be able to mask all of the other failures to plan ahead by just having simple growth covering it all up. It's just not going to happen. The experiences that the school boards have had in the past three or four years are going to be the experiences of the colleges and universities in the next three or four, and I think they are looking realistically at the situation and making, I hope, adequate preparations for that. But we will be getting on with declaring these institutes and colleges just as soon as it is possible to do so.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we'd be prepared to take another look at the Open House programme. It did not meet the criteria that we established for giving grants for educational purposes. There's only so much money, and there are more requests every year than we've got funds to provide for. In order to grant the money in an understandable and consistent fashion, we've said that certain criteria must be met and this particular programme just didn't equal the desirability of others. But they can apply again and we'd be prepared to take another look at it.

Now with respect to school closures, it should be evident to everyone, Mr. Chairman, that there are going to be redundant schools in British Columbia, particularly in the Victoria area. The average number of youngsters per residential home going to school used to be two. Now it is somewhere between 0.6 and 0.8. What that means for a school to be the same size is that the catchment area has got to more than double.

Now you've got two choices. One is you could have youngsters rattling around in half-empty schools, or you can close schools and let the youngsters move to other schools in the district and maintain a variety of programmes that can go with the larger school. But you can't have it both ways.

MR. BARBER: Or reduce class size.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, yes, you can reduce class size and have the education budget leap to $1.2 billion, $1.4 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion, and who's going to pay it? I'm going to say right now - I might as well say what's on everybody's lips - that we can't go on reducing class sizes in British Columbia without breaking the bank. I think it would be a very different story, Mr. Chairman, if there was strong evidence that the halving in the size of school classes that's gone on in the last 30 years or so was producing a noticeably better result. We're in academic trouble, not just in British Columbia, but all over North America, and I would think that if there is disillusionment with the educational system today, that disillusionment is with the promise that was offered by so many educators a decade ago that if class size were merely reduced all the problems would be solved and we'd be sending youngsters forth more polished than you could possibly imagine. But that promise hasn't come to pass. Indeed, we've got a man right here from British Columbia who has been offered an international award for a study he did on the school system saying that more was learned when the class sizes were larger. It was the opposite of what you are suggesting now - that we do a better job if the class sizes became smaller.

We've got to think in terms of the taxpayer's dollar and the educational results, not in terms of jobs for the boys, whether that's the policy of your party or not. It is still not responsible as far as managing a system and producing a result as concerned. So I reject, Mr. Chairman, the course of action recommended by the NDP. I'd like to get that course of action of the NDP on the record now: they're advocating maintaining all the schools open, but continually reducing the size of the classes.

MR. BARBER: We didn't say that.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, that's what you said across the aisle to me. He can get up and enunciate better, if he likes, but that's the way I remember it at the moment.

MR. BARBER: I said that's another option.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll just tell you this, Mr. Chairman. You can't on the one hand stand up and demand lower taxes or more government money, and then within 20 minutes or a half hour stand up here and recommend a programme that's going to add the same tremendous leap

[ Page 2031 ]

in costs that was experienced when the NDP was in office before. When I say I was blaming the NDP for what took place, not the school boards, it was that they did this very thing when they were in office. We hear them now saying they can't wait to do it again. All I say is British Columbia taxpayer, beware!

MR. BARBER: Don't put words in my mouth. I asked questions about closures policy.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, you were the one who said smaller class sizes, not me.

MR. BARBER: I said that's an option.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I rejected that option and I'm giving you the reason, and I hope that you'll reject it too. Stand up and reject it. Stand up and have some courage in the House. Don't just be a critic, stand up and make some policy.

MR. BARBER: I did that for three-quarters of an hour last night.

HON. MR. McGEER: One of the things about opposition - perish that I should ever use this word in front of the NDP - is that it's laissez-faire. Stand up and say what you like. Is that acceptable for the NDP - laissez-faire? If you stand up and have one policy and your colleagues have another, it doesn't matter so much in opposition. You can have that laissez-faire policy. I just wish you'd been a little more laissez faire when you were in government. British Columbia would have been better off for it.

In any event, the member made a good point about an appeal procedure and written criteria for closing schools. I think that's a very meritorious suggestion, and it's one that we're working toward. As it stands now, the school board makes the decision and establishes the need and we confirm that they have established the need and that they have informed the residents of the area. In a sense we are an appeal procedure, but we're certainly not going to entertain public hearings of the kind that the former Deputy Attorney-General has started here in Victoria - we don't need to turn the ministry into a court room. But if we feel that the school board is way out of line in closing down a school, then there is that safety valve in the ministry office. But we, quite frankly, have supported the actions that have been taken by the Victoria School Board. And I want to say right now that I consider that this is an extremely responsible school board, one of the most responsible in the province of British Columbia, and I think they're doing a good job, particularly under the difficult circumstances. It's not easy for a school board to close down a school. There are emotional appeals and historical reasons can always be given as to why a difficult task shouldn't have been undertaken. But they have a little bit of courage and, as well, the Victoria School Board has a lot of common sense on behalf of the taxpayer. And I must say that I side with the Victoria School Board and not the former Deputy Attorney-General.

But there is no reason why we shouldn't make the procedure a little more formal. At the present time there is a committee at work, studying the recommendations of the Educational Research Institute of B.C.; it consists of people from the ministry, school trustees and representatives of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. They're going to report to me in September and possibly at that time we'll have a better and more formal procedure established. I think you're quite correct that it should be done, because this is not an easy job for anybody. But I commend the Victoria School Board - I think they're doing their job well.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, as far as I'm concerned, this vote is just about where it should be, and we're going to have to let it go on the basis that the minister has proven once and for all that he's locked into opposition. He was in opposition a long time as a member and he's locked into that situation. He gets up and talks about laissez-faire. I can't believe it. He answers the question that we've asked right from the outset - how come the provincial government is only picking up 40 per cent of the 100 per cent load and the 60 per cent is being dumped on the local taxpayer? - by getting up and giving us all sorts of rhetoric which means absolutely nothing. It defies one's wildest dreams to describe this minister locked into opposition.

Vote 56 approved.

On vote 57: independent schools, $9,156, 008.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I asked the question the other day and the minister got up and gave us a big political speech. I wasn't saying anything in opposition to independent schools or the Act or whatever. All I did was bring up a letter indicating ....

Interjection.

[ Page 2032 ]

MR. COCKE: You know, if you just get back to your own ministry and tried to run it, you'd be doing a better job than you are. He is sitting around, talking in the House. Think about some of the disabled people in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who're you talking to?

MR. COCKE: That minister of human suffering.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You are really disabled all the time.

MR. COCKE: If you want to insult, get up and do it, use your nerve and say that publicly.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Your handicap is in the head.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman didn't hear the remark. However, if the member found the remark to be offensive....

MR. COCKE: Yes, I find it so. He charged that I was handicapped in the head, and I think he should get up and withdraw the remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask that the minister withdraw any unparliamentary remark.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, is that on the list of excluded terms?

MR. CHAIRMAN: A member found it offensive. And, hon. member, 1, as your chairman, have made a ruling in this House that the best judge you can have to find out what's offensive is to use the mirror image and ask if you would want someone to use those words about you. However, the member did find it offensive and I would ask that you withdraw it. Just a simple withdrawal would be in order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather serious matter that I brought to the minister's attention. And the matter is that, when the Independent Schools Support Act came in....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, you know, if you'd listened to the debate, my hon. friend, you might have learned something.

Mr. Chairman, when the Act came in, the minister indicated that it was for operating expenses or non-instructional, depending on what level. One of the things that the minister made very clear was that it would not be for capital costs. It would not be for that kind of peripheral activity that he indicated makes the independent schools independent by virtue of the fact that they put up their own capital.

Mr. Chairman, I noted for the record that St. George's School, which is a very, very high-priced educational facility, to the tune.... I think I remember that they charge $5,000 a year room and board, and $1,700 a year for tuition only, or thereabouts.

In any event, this is what the headmaster and the chairman of the board of that school sent out to all of the parents. I don't want to read the whole thing, but I just want to give you a couple of areas in this letter: "The inspector is on record as saying that his department will be disinterested as to the manner in which the money is spent although the Act specifies...." and he goes on and talks about that. So that's one thing.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Then I get on later in the letter where he is outlining possible uses to which grants might be applied: "One of the possible uses is to pay off present capital debt and fund future capital expansion." Now, Mr. Chairman, what he's really talking about is diverting funds that are now used for operating, use the funds that are given by the provincial government for that and then divert those funds into the area that is supposed to be beyond the limits. Mr. Chairman, that's identically the same as using the money specifically for that purpose. You're circumventing the Act if this is the way it's going to go.

If that is possible, and it would appear to be possible, then it strikes me the minister has an obligation to see to it that those loopholes.... There are a number of loopholes as I read out the other day. The minister can read the record; I don't want to prolong this debate any longer than I have to. But I think the loopholes should be closed to make sure that we live within the declared area of the Act.

HON. MR. McGEER: I did answer the member

[ Page 2033 ]

when he raised this subject previously by saying that the inspector of independent schools recommends a payment after the service has been rendered. Now if it's very clear that the money that has been paid has been used when it was received for purposes other than the Act intended, then the inspector of independent schools has the right to lift the licence of that school and they won't receive further payments. But nothing is given prospectively, it's all given retrospectively, so you have an opportunity to see what the school has done before you make the payment. I think that one doesn't need to write new legislation. I think the power is there in the Act now.

MRS. DAILLY: Just two quick, specific questions on the same matter. Could you tell us, Mr. Chairman, to the minister - I know the inspector has been out and he's done his work - how many schools to date are actually going to receive government grants, out of the over, I think, 25,000 possible?

Then the second question on that is: is St. George's School, which is the school particularly referred to as an example, on the list to receive grants?

HON. MR. McGEER: There are 108 schools, I believe, and roughly 18,000 students. Yes, St. George's is on the list. I was looking up at Mr. Ensing in the galleries.

MRS. DAILLY: I think this is the very important point, Mr. Chairman. We've just heard a letter read that hasn't been denied to date outside or inside this House. It points out that St. George's School is pretty well setting its own policy on diverting their grants. Now if St. George's School is on the list and is receiving these grants and the minister has heard this letter, what assurance can he give us that something is going to be done about this complete repudiation by this school obviously, of the policy guidelines laid down by the minister? What assurance do we have? It's taxpayers money, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a third try and I hope it will be the last. No money has yet been paid. When money is paid, it will be paid for services rendered. After the money has been paid, there will no doubt be a subsequent application for services that have been rendered for the next period. If, on the other hand, the money has been used for purposes other than specified in the Act, the inspector of independent schools will have an opportunity to determine that before a second payment is made.

But the payments that will be made starting late summer and in the fall are not for what is going to be done the following year. They are for what's been done this year, so the question doesn't come up with respect to the payments this year. Conceivably, a question of this nature could come up before a second payment is made, but by that time one will know whether money that has been awarded has been diverted. But since no money has been paid, no money has been diverted.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I know we've gone over this at considerable length so I don't intend to prolong it, because I've already expressed my strong feelings on this. I just want to say that this situation with St. George's and with other schools since this bill has come in, and the minister's answer just now, points out the major concern of people of this province: there is no proper accountability under Bill 33, the Independent Schools Support Act, for the proper spending of the taxpayers I money.

The minister, through all this discussion in the last several days, has given us no assurance whatsoever that taxpayers' money is going to be properly accounted for. Those are vague answers that he has given us. I can assure you that in the House or out of the House it will be absolutely necessary for this to be watched very carefully and we will expect answers.

We're all supposed to be guardians of the public purse, but this Act seems to be making fish out of one system of education in this province and fowl out of the other. The public schools of this province have to abide by the Public Schools Act. They have to be accountable, through public meetings and elections, to the taxpayer. Yet the private schools of this province are receiving public money without any true accountability.

Vote 57 approved.

On vote 58: post secondary education - universities - $208,602, 857.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education made a promise to stand in front of any bulldozer that would dare to remove one inch of land from the University Endowment Lands which is presently being used as a park. His government has now agreed to remove 100 acres.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, the University Endowment Lands are not part of

[ Page 2034 ]

this ministry's estimates. However, what the member says is quite correct, and if she can find the bulldozer I will be there.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I will myself purchase a bulldozer, simply to get that minister to stand in front of it. If he could get the Minister of Human Resources to join him, we could really clean this province up once and for all.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a couple of quick questions on the matter of the universities council which was set up by the NDP government. I know at the time this Minister of Education supported the concept. We were very pleased to have that support when we brought it in. It has been established for over three years now and there has been some great concern expressed. I won't go into a long reading from The Province, but I think the minister is well aware that Paddy Sherman of The Province, who was on it, expressed some basic concerns. The basic concern is that they don't seem to have established their autonomy.

The minister was in the House when we brought this bill in as an NDP government, and I think he applauded the concept of having this body which would co-ordinate all the university spendings, projections and research, and maintain an autonomy from the government. I simply want to ask the minister if he is satisfied with the way the universities council is operating. There is criticism. I think he and I both want to see it work and I'm just wondering if he would comment on that.

The second one, very quickly, so I do not have to get up again on this vote, is that there's $3 million here for interior programmes. We know the minister is moving on this long distance programme thing, and I'm wondering how he can correlate this. Does this mean that SFU and UVic are still going to proceed with their interior programming, and how is it going to work out in correlation with the long distance?

HON. MR. McGEER: I can tell you that I've been very distressed about some of the teething problems, I guess, of the Universities Council. Parts of it were due to some personality clashes, but part has been due to the requirement in the Act - and I'm sure the member didn't anticipate it at the time it was introduced - that the employees of the Universities Council be public servants under the Public Service Commission.

The members of the Universities Council have been distressed that they did not have freedom to hire and keep their own staff independent of the public service. They felt that as long as they were constrained in that way, they not only appeared to be an am of the ministry, but in fact almost became an arm as far as the practical work they were doing. That has been the main bone of contention. I'd like to see that cleared up because I think they should be completely independent of government, and I hope that if some minor amendments to the Act appear, the opposition will support that.

With respect to the distance learning programme and the interior programmes that have been developed by the universities themselves, what we want to do is to get the universities with their distance education programmes to concentrate on the professional fields, including education. But when it comes to a core programme in arts and science, we'll have that developed through the Open Learning Institute, with the universities themselves taking responsibility for developing the programme and, hopefully, accrediting it in each of their institutions.

The reason why we think it better to do it this way is for the resident of the smaller community in the rural part of British Columbia. If the academic materials are prepared in the distance learning mode, then it is going to be practical to deliver it in smaller classes, and that individual will have a far richer variety than would possibly be available were they to take stand up courses. It's obviously impractical to have a resident faculty for each of the three universities in every single community in British Columbia. But by having them work together to produce a core curriculum to be delivered in the distance learning mode, and by taking advantage of the very fine materials that have been produced around the world, we think a really impressive variety in university and sub university disciplines can be taken throughout all the province.

We have great expectations but it may be that there will be disappointments. In any event, the mandate is a broad one. That's the way the breakdown will come between the universities in the OLI and I'm hoping for the co-operation of everybody to make it a success.,

MR. LEVI: There was a report that the B.C. Development Corporation was discussing with the University of British Columbia a land exchange, presumably in relation to the industrial park. Could the minister tell us whether these discussions are still going on or whether they've been concluded? I have heard him before saying that the UEL isn't under his

[ Page 2035 ]

vote, but this is in relation to negotiations with UBC.

HON. MR. McGEER: Any decision with respect to the university lands themselves - that is, the university campus - would be a decision of the board of governors of UBC, and any decision with respect to the endowment lands would be a decision of the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . I know of no industrial park on the University Endowment Lands. I know it's been talked about in the press, but it certainly wasn't any policy of mine.

Vote 58 approved.

On vote 59: post-secondary education -colleges and provincial institutes, $146,630, 743.

MR. COCKE: When the minister brought in the bill for regional colleges, there were a number of sections left unproclaimed. The local people like, for instance, people who support Capilano College, Douglas, Camosun and many other colleges, are wondering when he's going to proclaim the section of the Act that will take the load off the taxpayers in the local area. It's 3 mills in North Vancouver, for example. I noticed that he was very quick to proclaim the section around the Pacific Vocational Institute, and the reason he was quick to do that was because he was financing it anyway under the old BVI and VV1. But anyway, I wonder whether or not he is going to get working so that the local taxpayers aren't going be picking up this shot forever.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm impatient, as is the member for New Westminster, for these institutions to be declared provincial institutions and achieve the very objective that he's raised. It's being going at the rate of about one every three weeks, and perhaps it will be possible to speed that rate up. But certainly by the fall considerable progress will have been made in this direction. The deputy informs me he thinks that we can get them all done by mid fall. I hate setting targets like this, because sometimes you can't keep to them, but anyway, the pace has been about one every three weeks. It's true that we have concentrated initially on the provincial institutes, but this has really been because we wanted to get the function started. Things like the Open Learning Institute, the Justice Training Institute, the Emily Carr and so on were all things that wouldn't start to function until we had them declared. So that we could get the programmes going, we've done them first, and it has meant that the staff has been preoccupied with this instead of getting around to the colleges. Westmin But we've also got the problem, Mr. Chairman, of getting the councils functioning, because we've set up an academic, occupational training and a management advisory council. We've been busy getting all of these new activities going and it has meant that the others have had to wait a little bit. But it will be by mid fall, hopefully.

Vote 59 approved.

On vote 60: student aid programmes, $11,273, 537.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister was boasting about the sudden excellence in grade 12 during his last year as minister. I gather that under those circumstances you'd think that a minister would be setting aside more for student aid. He's setting aside less, yet they boasted in the paper of setting aside more. If you look at the actual amount that you're going to give - oh yes, in order to administer this aid it's gone up a bit - the actual aid has gone down from $10,415, 000 to $10,322, 154. That's the actual amount of aid, yet in the budget we noticed that student aid had gone up. What nonsense! Incidentally, where is the excellence?

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to bring to the attention of the minister something else that's going on - a little bit of male chauvinism in the whole area of bursaries and grants. This is an article in The Province on November 2,1977:

it 'The University of B.C. board of governors has called for an investigation into why female students receive a smaller scholarship and bursary awards than their male counterparts. The average payment is less in every case for a female student and there is noticeable difference in graduate fellowship and bursary awards, ' faculty representative Gideon Rosenbluth told members Tuesday. 'I can't think why it should be. It might be worth an analysis to find out what's going on.' "

And then they show the amounts that are paid out to male and female. I think, Mr. Chairman, that's something that should be looked at. It seems to me just part of the old syndrome that the guys are worth educating and the girls aren't. I think that it's a sad situation. I particularly think it's a sad situation because I have four daughters, and I'm just not going to put up with this very easily.

[ Page 2036 ]

HON. MR. MCGEER: Every year money is left on the table for student aid, and money was left on the table last year and I expect money will be left on the table this year. So we've set more than enough money aside. There are more funds going into scholarships this year - not as much more as I would personally have liked to see in there, but in any event it is up a little bit.

Now as far as the people who are employed as student aid officers are concerned, they're not employees of our ministry, they're employees of the institutions involved.

Vote 60 approved.

Vote 61: teachers' pensions fund, $40,600, 000 - approved.

Vote 62: metric conversion, 331,430 -approved.

Vote 63: advances re rural school taxes -net, $10 - approved.

Vote 64: research secretariat, $87,735 -approved.

Vote 65: building occupancy charges, $18,057, 264 - approved.

On vote 66: computer and consulting charges, $1,300, 000.

MR. COCKE: This is that minister of restraint - that beautiful minister of restraint. Last year it was $232,000; this year it's $1.3 million. Congratulations on all your restraint.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's another example of the lack of understanding of that opposition. I'm not going to add to the debate.

Vote 66 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 16: minister's office, $139,990.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just with the off chance, Mr. Chairman, that all of the votes would pass immediately this afternoon, I thought it would be very appropriate that I stand up and make a few comments to all of my colleagues in the Legislature on both sides of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: That may reduce the probability of their passing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Perhaps I should initiate by quoting that folk figure of the New Democratic Party. I too fought like a tiger with Treasury Board and, on balance, I think I'm satisfied with the results.

By way of opening remarks, though, I would like to first of all make a few comments about the twin concerns which thoughtful British Columbians have raised as problems in the past few months. These are the methods which our society utilizes in controlling crime; and secondly, the accountability of those who we place in positions of trust for this purpose. The citizens of all of the provinces in this country have expressed their views about methods of accountability that should be employed by our police forces, and have also very strongly emphasized that the effectiveness of police investigations should not be hampered.

We have in the ministry received a very well-articulated correspondence from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association concerning the issue of accountability. I would like all of the members of the House to know that on April 19 of this year I requested my Deputy Attorney-General to have the ministry undertake a full review of these issues and consider options that should be Employed in ensuring maximum police efficiency plus maximum accountability of these institutions.

I've also requested transcripts of the evidence before the Macdonald royal commission. I've said that if there is a requirement to proceed further, we shall proceed further. This initiative is ongoing and at this point it is incomplete. It must be noted that the matters raised by the royal commission relating to the problems of British Columbia cover the period essentially from 1972 to 1976, and the procedures since 1976 have changed.

There is no question that the people of B.C. expect their fellow citizens to abide by the law, whatever their calling, their vocation or their position. Where examples of inappropriate action is disclosed, the Crown will take appropriate action to deal with it. This is illustrated, as we all know, in the day-by day activities of officers of the law and of the Ministry of the Attorney-General in this and in all provinces of our country. It is also illustrated by the particular initiatives of this government in the commissions that it has called for a number of reasons - the B.C. Rail, the Proudfoot, the Filmer and the wildlife inquiries. I'm sure the government will continue to meet its obligations to the public in this regard.

Looking at the control of crime, we must ensure and we have ensured that intelligence

[ Page 2037 ]

operations within the province are effective and accountable - effective in that unnecessary duplication or costly departmentalization be reduced, and accountable in that adequate safeguards are ready and available. Both of these are priority issues for officials in the ministry.

They are crucial questions for our society to address not only in B.C. but throughout the country and in every province. They were indeed crucial, Mr. Chairman, in that one of the best measures of our democratic institutions is our ability to cope with crime in a way in which the public feels secure in the knowledge that the action is being firmly and aggressively taken under established policy -also, I'd say, in the continuing and full knowledge that the criminal element does not and will not act under similar constraints and that with them, indeed, anything goes.

Now this is the task that has been set for the ministry in the months to come, and we want to make sure that those in the front line have our full support. All of us feel an urge that they do have and must have to do their job in the proper interests of each and every one of us in this province and in the country as a whole, but under the guidelines of effective methods of operation and accountability. These, Mr. Chairman, are issues which all Canadians in every walk of life, including those in all of the forces, feel very deeply about.

I'd like to indicate some of the programmes and plans that will follow, and certain of the accomplishments of the ministry. First, I would like to refer to Counterattack, the drinking-driving programme. I think that with the co-operation of the Insurance Corporation of B.C., many private organizations, a host of volunteers in various parts of the province, citizens' groups, mothers, fathers and youngsters, and all of the media, changes in the attitude of those who would otherwise be drinking and driving have been developed - public awareness has been stimulated and in a number of ways. The BATmobiles, the year-round province-wide roadblocks, short doses of advertising and public relations at key times have all, I think, contributed to a first successful year.

But the job in front is a difficult one, and that is to keep up the emphasis. The initiative developed was first mentioned by myself in the House in 1976 and it came into operation in May, 1977. 1 know that all of the members - and, indeed, all British Columbians - share the desire that each one of us keep up the pressure, because statistically this is certainly the number one crime problem in B.C.

Some interesting statistics. In the months between December, 1977, and April, 1978,132, 468 cars were checked - that's an average of 26,494 per month.

AN HON. MEMBER: It didn't include mine.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It didn't include yours? Could you give us your number?

The BATmobiles were very active in roadblocks for 1,770 hours. They were active for another 1,922 hours in community activities -this is in this few-month period - and they, of course, have been appearing at fairs, schools, crime-prevention programmes and in shopping centres.

It is of interest to know that there are already 25 active Counterattack committees in the province and an additional 17 groups which have been set up to look at school graduation exercises, and how to emphasize the very, very great importance of not drinking and driving.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of words about the new correctional programme vis-à-vis juveniles. In finding appropriate facilities for those who are found to be juvenile delinquents and requiring custodial programmes - being the bill that was introduced last year - I'm happy to say that it is operational. At Centre Creek Camp the major emphasis of the programme is on developing everyday work skills and a sense of responsibility through example, instruction and on-the-job activities. This programme involves two full-time teachers hired by the Chilliwack school board.

There is an example of the type of activities that we presently provide. An arrangement has been made with the Canadian Forces base in Chilliwack for a group of five or six youths to attend two days a week to undertake a variety of training in areas such as welding, carpentry, motor mechanics and so forth. These youths are under the direction of the Canadian Forces base personnel. They learn basic skills while taking direction from a foreman. They're assessed on the basis of interest and capabilities. The potential of this kind of programme has yet to be fully developed. Other kinds of work include forestry, parks projects and community service. The recreational activities include wilderness trips and counselling, which are undertaken with the use of volunteer sponsors wherever possible.

Lakeview Camp allows for a one-month residential stay with wilderness challenges throughout. Also a specialized residential programme of four to six months has been designed to take those youths as part of the condition of probation. Schooling is undertaken, utilizing two full-time teachers;

[ Page 2038 ]

activities include forestry work, outdoor programmes, and examples of community service that the youths have been involved in are the building of a picnic area and a campsite for handicapped children.

I would like to refer briefly to the restructuring of the office of the fire marshal adopting certain recommendations of the Keenleyside report. There will be a provision for the appointment of a fire commissioner and a fire advisory board. Additional thrusts are to streamline the process into new construction plans, provide additional inspection staff to support local fire services, provide training for firefighters, plus the introduction of a programme to deal with arson, which is one of our most serious problems.

Finally, I would like to refer to the establishment of a programme for the automatic enforcement of maintenance orders. From now on, a spouse who can pay but won't and shirks off his or her responsibility, then, with the consent of the person who is owed the money, he or she will face court registry-initiated enforcement procedures which can include garnishee against wages or money owing, seizure and sale of goods and of land, and also so-called summons.

MR. MACDONALD: In what court?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In the provincial court, Mr. Member, for the time being, and conceivably that can be expanded as well to the other court.

Now about next year, I would like to mention a couple of points. First of all, we're going to have a full review of the coroners' roles, activities and remuneration, and consideration of proclamation of the statute a continued attack upon the impaired driving - Counterattack - I stress, and continue to stress, will be a high priority. There will be new initiatives there, including the graduation programmes in high schools which I have been discussing and the introduction at appropriate impact time of the 0.05 legislation that was passed last year for the 24-hour roadside suspensions. We're giving very serious consideration to compulsory blood testing. This is a programme that has been developed with a measure of success in other parts of the world, in Australia. It's not yet in place in Canada, though I understand that other provinces are giving consideration to it. This conceivably would require an amendment to the Criminal Code and it is an item that will be under discussion by the provincial attorneys at their regular meeting.

Information papers concerning private policing, freedom of information and builders', mechanics' and repairers' liens are in process. We're going to continue to examine the processing of cases. While we've not been able to make the degree of progress we'd like in streamlining that, I'm satisfied that we're not too far from it. With new upgraded courts and a full complement of judges and an improved court management, these will all be a very high priority.

I would note, hon. members, for your interest that the federal government has in its criminal law amendment bill recently made proposals for the 180-day rule to ensure that all cases of a summary nature go through the courts within that period of time. I think we can take some credit for that because this was an initiative that was first developed in this province.

In terms of construction priorities, I do wish the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was here. Our major project will be the New Westminster courthouse plus the construction of unified family courts for the city of Vancouver. All of these are progressing and others are being planned. A courthouse is also being constructed at Terrace.

In corrections, priorities will be the upgrading and search for new facilities on Vancouver Island plus construction of a 150-bed remand centre for Vancouver and the 75-bed remand centre for the lower mainland.

Over the past five years, the ministry has experienced very rapid increases in costs and in staff and in workload. We're now going into the job of consolidating, making things more efficient and looking to alternatives for programmes that may be considered costly. The decision has been made to turn to zero based budgeting, which will give us an opportunity for full examination of the utilization of all programme components.

Before sitting down, I would like to pay tribute to the very hard-working and dedicated people in this ministry, to the deputy Attorney-General; to the associate deputy, Mr. Dennis Sheppard of courts division; associate deputy Neil McDiarmid in the criminal division; associate deputy Dr. Gilbert Kennedy of statutes consolidation; associate deputy Mark Krasnick of policy and planning; as well as the deputy commissioner of corrections, Mr. Bernard Robinson. I know that my friend from Vancouver East will be sorry to hear that Mr. Allan Higenbottam, legislative counsel, is ill at the present time in hospital. I'm sure that all of the members would indeed wish him a most speedy recovery.

At this point, I toss the ball out of this court.

[ Page 2039 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to keep my voice down. I don't want to wake up any of the members.

I want to say that it's nice to see the Deputy A-G sitting aver there, Mr. Vogel. I think he must feel a little bit like a swallow who has suddenly got caught up in a fast badminton game. But he will recover from that. His profile has been a little high in the last while. The Attorney-General's has been too low, to be quite frank, and that sort of explained it.

I'm trying to be kind about it, but I do feel that this ministry is suffering from a vacuum in leadership and poor morale. I mean that. There's been a loss of a lot of people, good people: Leon Getz, John Hogarth, Dave Vickers, Raymond Rogers, Adrian Wong. I'm serious about it. I think the ministry has a duty to recoup and make the image of the justice system a little better in this province, and I think there's been a failure of leadership.

The programmes that were underway have come to a dead halt pretty well. I know the Attorney-General has spoken a little bit about getting after the drivers and how they're looking for new jails, but the five-year plan to phase out Oakalla. and Wilkinson Road is still on the book. It's going to be 10 years unless we get rid of that coalition over there. That's not going to be easy to do because they come from all parts of the political spectrum. You've got everything from a guy down there that would make Ronald Reagan look like a flaming radical to.... You've got everything over there - a real catch-bag, eh? Do you still talk to each other? I wonder how good the communication is in that cabinet. I don't think it's very good.

But anyway, there has been a stall in the programmes. You mentioned the Keenleyside report on fire services. You know, you've rearranged some furniture in starting a commission, but it's just a very modest start. They've been in office, Mr. Chairman, for two and a half years. I know that distinctly because I can remember exactly when I lost my car. I've been driving around in a Pinto for the last two and a half Years, so I can fix the date with absolute precision.

MR. KEMPF: You finally have to pay for it yourself.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I had to pay for it myself and I couldn't charge any of the gasoline up except to my law office.

There's been a failure, too, in the Attorney-General's ministry in acting as the chief law officer of the Crown in terms of giving leadership in justice to the government. Now that's a role where the ministry has fallen down. I think the fact that the late hon. Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis) suffered the kind of thing he suffered at the commencement of the trouble he's now in, and the charge that's now pending which shouldn't be discussed, is a failure of the Attorney-General's ministry to see that proper procedures are used in what was basically a justice ministry. I feel that the Premier didn't consult with the ministry in that last impulsive move that was so fatal to the image of the government and so fatal to the rights of an individual.

There are other things that are happening where there is a failure to show leadership in terms of the justice role of the government. I think that it should be a higher role than it is at the present time - much higher. I pick up a paper, for example, and I see things that are happening from other ministers in the government which simply.... It's just incredible some of the things that are happening which are basically justice problems. Mr. Bert Hoskins was asked about the heroin bill....

AN. HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: I say justice does have something to do with the apprehension and the rights of individuals. If it doesn't, and if that's your position, then okay, I'll stop right now. I think there's been a failure of input.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, he's talking on a justice question. He's asked why does the appeal section of the bill put the onus on the individual....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member is well aware of the rules regarding bills before the House.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the member to move on to another subject.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to argue your point of order. It seems to me that when legislation passes through this House affecting the rights of individuals, if it hadn't been vetted by the Attorney-General, as obviously this hadn't, it should have been. That is a vacuum of leadership.

[ Page 2040 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're very well aware of the anticipation order regarding legislation as well.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not discussing the merits of the bill at all, Mr. Chairman. I'm saying that there are provisions in there where the rights of people, in terms of their legal rights, have been put in the most amazing context whether the bill is a good one or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will ask you again to move on, please, to a different subject. You have a wide scope to discuss under the minister's office. I'm sure that you can move on to a different subject other than the bill presently before this House.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, you've made the point I'm making - that this ministry whose estimates we're debating really have no position in terms of standing up for the sort of legal procedures that are important.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Okay, you pass that kind of thing where you repeal habeas corpus for 72 hours and you bring it up under the Attorney-General's estimates and you're ruled out of order by the Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you know you should be ruled out of order by the Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I have made my point, have I not, Mr. Chairman, between the two of us? The Attorney-General should be jumping up and taking leadership in this kind of a matter and making sure that whatever the merits of the bill - it's coming from another ministry -it does preserve basic rights in a judicial sense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you do not move on to a new subject, I'm going to have to ask you to take your seat and move on to a different member.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll return to that, sir.

MR. GIBSON: Just on the point of order that's being discussed, the legislative counsel is under the ministry of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That does not mean you open up debate in a bill.

MR. GIBSON: No, of course it doesn't. I'm just saying that the legislative counsel is responsible to the Attorney-General, and it's important that the legislative counsel should see that legislation which is drafted is constitutional.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know it isn't?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver-Capilano is on a point of order. Continue please.

MR. GIBSON: I'm being hassled by some of those members over there who haven't even read the constitution. They don't even know where it is.

And on my point of order, it's important that legislation should be constitutional and it's the Attorney-General's responsibility to ensure that. It seems proper to me to debate that in his estimate because it's under his administrative responsibility.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I most certainly had no intention of debating that bill in detail, but I do think that when there is an issue of habeas corpus, we should be able to ask the Attorney-General whether he's concerned about it. I do think that when there is a question of onus where the accused person has to clear himself , he should be asked to explain it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, would you continue on to the estimates and leave the discussion of the bill before the House for another time?

MR. MACDONALD: The Attorney-General has taken no position on this, publicly, privately or in any other way. That's what my complaint is. We're debating his estimates. I think it is a function of the office that he holds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, you have a wide range of debate under the minister's office. We are not going to debate the bill before the House. Would you move on, please, to a new topic?

MR. MACDONALD: Speaking about the question of legal advertising....

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder: has the Chair been advised, with respect to the bill before the House, whether submissions to the Attorney-General during estimates with respect to the constitutionality of the bill before it's debated in the

[ Page 2041 ]

Legislature, under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, amount to offending the rule against debating something on the order paper? In my submission, Mr. Chairman, it does not. All it is is asking the Attorney-General for his intentions with respect to the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, and whether or not he has considered and has decided one way or the other that a reference under the Act would be beneficial.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I answered that question in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't answer it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General says he has answered that question in the House; the Attorney-General has seldom been in the House in the last two or three weeks, so he wouldn't have an opportunity to answer any questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's not a point of order, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: He's been scurrying up and down the hall, getting into trouble.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Getting into trouble?

MR. LAUK: Always.

MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate the assistance I've had from Vancouver Centre because I had a little note here: "Will the Attorney-General refer Bill 18 - the Attorney-General, under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, has that power - to the court of appeal so that it can be tested as to its validity constitutionally before the province of British Columbia spends $14 million something odd - and the odd will be very expensive ... ?"

MR. SMITH: You can't get off the hook that easily, Alex.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I'm not on any hook; I'm as free as a bird. But I'll tell you what I am going to do: I'm going to insist on an answer to that question.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, dear me.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, yes, we are. The Attorney-General had a great public relations program last year for the juveniles, and it bottomed up in the courts.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's under appeal.

MR. MACDONALD: It bottomed up. Now the Attorney-General knows perfectly well that as the law now stands, his programme has been declared null and void. That's what it is right today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's operating. What's wrong with you?

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, it's operating. Let's come back to that. I know it's operating and it's operating in violence of the law.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is not.

MR. MACDONALD: Sure it is.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Shame on you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, all right. You're in contempt of court.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're dumb to boot.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Justice Andrews has declared that the Corrections Act....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please?

MR. MACDONALD: How come? Well, I'm not out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If members would address the Chair, order could be more easily maintained in the House to the benefit of all members.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, do we have to maintain order? Why, we're beginning to get a debate that's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member on a continuing point of order.

MR. LAUK: On a new point of order, the Attorney-General referred to the former Attorney-General as dumb, and I would ask him to withdraw that remark, or I'm prepared to file documents with respect to the Attorney-Generals practice in years gone by.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Attorney-General withdraw the remark that the member found offensive?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What? That he was dumb?

[ Page 2042 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry. If you consider you're not dumb, I'll go along with you. (Laughter.) I unqualifiedly reserve.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister unqualifiedly withdraws.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes. Would Albert Einstein please continue?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver East continues - through the Chair, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General has a pencil, I'm asking him if he is prepared to refer Bill 18, under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia for a decision on its constitutional validity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, for your information - and, indeed, the information of all members - I would now like to quote a very short passage from the 16th edition of Sir Erskine May...

MR. LAUK: The 16th edition? That's outdated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... which says as follows: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I thank the hon. Chairman for bringing to our attention that section once again. We're all very familiar with that section. However, a reference under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act does not involve legislation; it involves a reference. We're not anticipating legislation; we're not suggesting legislation; all we're doing is asking that the Attorney-General do what any right thinking, good citizen who becomes Attorney-General should do - save the taxpayer money and refer this Act that he's bungled in the drafting to a constitutional questions review.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has made its ruling. I am ruling against discussion of Bill 18 during the estimates presently before the House.

MR. MACDONALD: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're having a nice discussion here, but there happens to be an Act on the statute books which is called the Constitutional Questions Determination Act. It was introduced into the House and is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General, not the Provincial Secretary or anybody else. Now it is not new legislation we are talking about. We're talking about whether the Attorney-General will institute a reference to determine the constitutionality of a certain piece of legislation. We're not discussing that legislation. And if that's ruled out of order as not coming within the aegis of the Attorney-General's responsibilities, then why have an Attorney-General? You know, the vacuum would be complete.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm serious. If that's ruled out of order, I intend to challenge the ruling, because that's a question the Attorney-General should answer on behalf of the government. It's a legal question.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, let's wait for the ruling; and if it goes that way we will challenge it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion of any of the sections of the bill will be ruled out of order.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we are not discussing any section of Bill 18. We're discussing chapter 72 of the Revised Statutes, which is the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, which says in section 3 that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council at the instance of the Attorney-General, whose Act it is, may refer to the Court of Appeal. I want your opinion on that. Will the Attorney-General refer that Act for constitutional determination before wasting money?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If that is one of the administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General, perhaps the Attorney-General would care to reply.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I'd just like to mention one thing, Mr. Chairman - that the member for Vancouver East has, as he usually does, taken great liberty with quotation. He's taken great liberty with interpretation of a statute. He's taken great liberty with interpretation of a bill that is before the House and has not been debated. And, as I indicated

[ Page 2043 ]

to the former Attorney-General during the question period, if he or any other member of this Legislature has an opinion as to the lack of constitutionality of the bill, we would be delighted to receive a copy of that opinion, but not a bunch of vacuous sentiments and statements from the member for Vancouver East, who not only has misquoted, but has left the inference in this chamber which is a false and incorrect inference that there is a reference capacity in the minister who occupies the office - as I do now - to refer to the Court of Appeal.

The member for Vancouver East artfully and, I would hope, not deliberately neglected to read the qualifying section. He should know that because that too was was discussed in the House. "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" -which I assume means the cabinet - "may refer to the court of appeal or a judge for hearing and consideration any matter that he thinks fit to refer, and the court of appeal or the judge will thereupon hear and consider the same." To you, hon. member, I would assume that if the cabinet, which is the government of this province, took the position that it wished to refer any statute, once the statute is passed, to the court of appeal, it would do so. But that, sir, is a government decision, which you know full well.

MR. GIBSON: I think the Attorney-General was probably reading section 3 of the Act. I would direct his attention to section 11 of the Act, which mentions specifically the powers of the Attorney-General, not the cabinet at all. It says the supreme court has jurisdiction to entertain an action in instances of either the Attorney-General of Canada or of the Attorney-General of British Columbia for declarations as to the validity of any statute or any provision of any statute of the Legislature, and so on.

It's quite clear that this statute, the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, is under the authority and jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is the chief law officer of the Crown. It's the Attorney-General who advises the cabinet as to legal questions - at least it used to be and I hope it still is. I hope the cabinet is not taking advice from other than the law officer of the Grown as to legal questions.

Is the Attorney-General seriously telling us in this House that the power under section 3 of this Act to be exercised by the cabinet would not be exercised upon the advice of the Attorney-General? Is that his serious position? Is he abdicating the responsibility to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council advice under section 3 of this Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, in reading section 11 .... It's difficult when one is a layman.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm very glad that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano read section 11. It deals of course with the statute. At the present time it, sir, is not a statute. It has not yet even been called for second reading; it has not been debated in the House, at this point: in time. I would suggest to the hon. member that until such time as it is a statute, his observations are inappropriate.

I would again register the same welcome to him that I gave to the member for Vancouver East. If the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, who has a great deal to say about this particular matter, has an opinion that indicates for one reason or another that any particular bill is unconstitutional, would he kindly produce it? I would be delighted to deliver it to officers of the Crown for their consideration.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the Attorney-General has made a rather ingenuous interpretation of my remarks. In quoting section 11, what I said was to establish that it is clearly the Attorney-General's responsibility to administer this statute. Then I went on to say that I recognized under section 11 that it is only existing statutes that may be referred. But I went on to say that under section 3, he may refer any matter, whether it be a bill or whether it be a bundle of evidence or whatever he chooses to refer, to the court of appeal if he is able to convince his colleagues in cabinet that this should be done.

I'm asking the Attorney-General: is he honestly suggesting to this committee that it is not his responsibility to advise the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as to whether or not they should take action under section 3 of this Act? It seems to me it is clearly his responsibility because it is legal advice to the Crown. It seems to me that if he does not take action on a bill on which substantial constitutional doubt has been raised in the light of a decision in the courts with respect to a similar law that he had passed last year that was found to be, at least for the time being, ultra vires of the powers of this province, and if in the light of that record he is not prepared to give that kind of advice to prevent the possible waste of public money until an actual case may be brought in some-

[ Page 2044 ]

time after the bill comes into effect, which might be months from now, and after millions of dollars have been expended, then he is not carrying out the responsibilities of his office. It's that simple.

MR. MACDONALD: We haven't had an answer. It's the Attorney-General's estimates. We've asked about an important statute which embraces a large public expenditure. We've asked what you think about this course of action. We get no answer.

I think one of the problems with the Attorney-General is that he forgets that the Queen is indivisible. Too often a question is asked of the Attorney-General, and he says: "Oh, that's up to cabinet." Maybe it's his responsibility. Too often he says: "That's the director of prosecutions; don't ask me." Or you ask him something else and he says: "The police are going to look after that. Somebody is going to run to the police and do it." The Attorney-General has to answer these things. He has to answer for his whole ministry. The police force is under his jurisdiction. He hasn't been doing that.

I remember when I held the off ice of Attorney-General I had some things I didn't know about at the beginning at all and I regretted that I didn't. The Sanucci case was a good example. I had no choice but to be the spokesman and take full responsibility for what had happened and what was going to happen. The Attorney-General is not doing that. He has not accepted the responsibilities of that role. Too often we're diverted. Oh, the cabinet will decide. The Attorney-General is the spokesman in terms of that constitutional questions Act. We're entitled to an answer and we're getting none.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is it unconstitutional? Are you saying it's unconstitutional?

MR. MACDONALD: No, we're asking you about whether or not you would agree that it be referred to the court to determine it before we have another fiasco, as we did with the Corrections Amendment Act. It is a fiasco and for the Attorney-General to say a few minutes ago that it's still being operative....

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is!

MR. MACDONALD: It is, even though Mr. Justice Anderson declared it null and void.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You still don't understand it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chairman would appreciate it if I was allowed to participate in this debate between the two members. Perhaps if you would address your remarks to the Chair we can have more orderly debate. It must be very difficult for Hansard.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you this. An Act that has been declared unconstitutional and null and void by Mr. Justice Anderson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is not operative in this province at the present time, and if it is there's something wrong. It's under appeal, but there's no stay of appeal that reinstates its validity in the meantime. The directive came out of the office of the Attorney-General about bringing the juveniles who might be freed under that Act back into court and sort of putting them in double jeopardy. I'm sure that hasn't been carried out because it couldn't be carried out. I might ask about that at a later stage.

I still am going to ask for the answer as to the Attorney-General's views on advising the cabinet to refer Bill 18. 1 intend to press for an answer on that subject.

There have been other problem that have not been solved with the kind of alacrity that we think should be exhibited by that ministry. One is the question of private eyes. It's coming down the road, but you know the government will only last for another six or eight or ten months at the most. So is there not some need for a little more momentum in the ministry?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What's going to happen then?

MR. MACDONALD: I think the coalition will break up and be sent back home. I don't see how you can keep a gang like that together forever, with all those divergent philosophies. I don't think a coalition like that can last or should last.

Mr. Chairman, I want to change the subject for a moment. We've got lots of time, that's one thing about this House. I want to ask the Attorney-General to be specific on the question of advertising by lawyers, because the Attorney-General made this statement on April 18, as reported in the Victoria Times, and I think it's a disgraceful statement. He said: "If the B.C. Law Society members want to change their rules about advertising, it's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. If you will refer to your book of bills, Bill M 213 is the Legal Professions Amendment Act,

[ Page 2045 ]

which deals with the subject you are discussing. As there is a bill on the order paper pertaining to this subject....

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of discussing the bill introduced by the member for Oak Bay. What I am discussing is how the public interest in this question is looked on by the Attorney-General, not the bill. I might vote for or against that bill. I haven't read it. I don't intend to, I might say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you stray, hon. member, and transgress this area, I will read you the bill, because it's only four lines long.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the bill in question, introduced by the hon. member for Oak Bay, is clearly out of order as it imposes a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, the bill has not been ruled out of order. Hon. member, we're not on bills today and until such time as bills are out of order....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the committee has no idea what the House has done. You don't know whether it has been ruled out of order or not. The fact is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would not be on the order paper if it had been ruled out of order.

MR. LAUK: Is it on the order paper?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would not be one of the bills that is here. It's on the order paper.

MR. LAUK: This is the first time in the history of the British parliamentary system that that rule has been invoked on a private member's bill.

MR. MACDONALD: I have no intention of discussing the bill, in any case. What I am considering is whether there has been leadership by the Attorney-General in this field, regardless of what legislation might be introduced. He said on last April 18: "If the B.C. Law Society members want to change their rules about advertising it's up to them, not the government." Now, what the Attorney-General has said, and why I think it's a disgraceful statement, is that the clients, the public, have no interest in this subject. How can they express their interest if not through the Attorney-General, showing a leadership position in this field?

I have here, Mr. Chairman, an article in the B.C. Medical Journal which, while it applies to the public interest, while it is saying that the law doesn't belong solely to the lawyers - and that has been the attitude of the Attorney-General - says this about the medical profession. I think it's a very progressive stand: "Agreement on the need for lay representation on the governing bodies of professional associations is one of the rare subjects on which politicians from all of British Columbia's political parties agree."

But the Attorney-General, in the matter of whether somebody has a right to know how much is going to be charged for a divorce, or a will, or something of that kind, so he won't be too afraid to seek legal services - that's what's happening out there - says it's just up to the Law Society. It's up to the lawyers. Now that is surely an abdication of the Attorney-General's role as a protector of the public interest.

It's not up to the lawyers to decide the interests of the clients in a matter of that kind, and it is pretty obvious that some of the egregious legal bills - and the Attorney-General knows all about them - do happen. You know, some of the people are afraid to go into a lawyer's office and have justification for that fear. There should be a little bit of sunshine in terms of people being able to see, as they do in the United States of America, the prices posted on the wall for all to see: uncontested divorce, $150 - what is it here; have you inquired? - wills, $35; court appearance, $125.

Surely that kind of basic information should be freely available to the public. But unless the Attorney-General takes an interest in the thing to defend the public interest, and doesn't leave it to the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, then there is again a total vacuum of leadership.

I don't know what other department of government is responsible for the Legal Professions Act, if it isn't the one whose estimates are under discussion now. I add to that and say that it is long overdue that there should be lay representation, watchdog representation on the governing body - that is, on the benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia - and they should report - there might be two of them - to the Legislature at least once a year on how the public interest has been served by the government body of that profession. It should happen in medicine and in other fields.

If the Attorney-General is worried about drafting the legislation, if he looks through Adrian's old files, you'll find it is all

[ Page 2046 ]

drafted out there. Yes it is. It was all ready to happen before we ran into this unfortunate situation of some kind of a coalition forming and something happening to the Liberal leader. I'm not quite sure what happened to him.

Anyway, the benchers of the Law Society issued a press release on Friday. I have not seen the details of it in full, but I've been told what it is. They said that the benchers rejected by a narrow majority any advertising of legal services. Now I would like to say as a member of the legal profession that they are making a very bad mistake in terms of their own image, in terms of legal business and the dignity of the profession.

They are going to arouse public opinion, which properly believes that a certain amount of advertising of basic services is free speech. Information should be freely available, and not just given in the tennis club or the golf club, where you can paddle that you will do this for so much, and so forth. Or you can have people shopping around and getting a quotation over the phone, and the lawyer might say: "I can do this and I'm the best guy in town." That's not controlled. Why shouldn't a regulated, properly controlled form of information for the public be made available? Unless the Attorney-General, who is the one responsible in this department, shows some leadership, then the public interest is absolutely sacrificed as the debate goes on. There is nobody else represented, and they're certainly not getting represented over there.

At this stage I'll just ask one or two other questions, and then perhaps ask some more this evening. I'd like to know what happened to the chairman of the B.C. Police Commission. If the Attorney-General is writing down questions, it was last October that we had the former Mayor Arthur Phillips - not Donald Phillips, Arthur Phillips - who became chairman of the B.C. Police Commission.

He was at that time thinking about his career outside of his business interests. He was thinking about running in the old seat of John Reynolds. He was thinking about going into politics. So the Attorney-General must have had an agreement with him, and I want the agreement spelled out by the Attorney-General in his estimates. He must have had and he did have an agreement with Mr. Phillips that if he came and took the position of chairman of the B.C. Police Commission in a period when crime rates are rising in the city of Vancouver, he was going to leave those other thoughts of politics behind and give service for more than three and a half months.

There was an agreement and the agreement was broken. It is not in the interests of good law enforcement that people should use that kind of an office as a temporary way stop.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He didn't do it that way.

MR. MACDONALD: He went to take a Liberal nomination in Vancouver Centre, after assuming a public responsibility and having it for three or four months. I'm asking the Attorney-General, who is on his feet, whether he did have a discussion with Mr. Phillips before he took that job as to whether he intended to stay with it and stay out of politics, and for how long.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, just by way of a quick response dealing with the item of private policing, the report of the Police Commission was received. As I stated in my opening remarks, the ministry is preparing a paper which, hopefully, will be circulated to the public of the province within the next few months, with suggestions for draft legislation so it can be considered. Hopefully we will have legislation in the next session.

Insofar as the juvenile containment programme is concerned, I really don't wish the hon. member to circulate throughout B.C. that people are being held contrary to the law in this programme . It is an effective programme; it is an ongoing programme. As a result of the decision of the court - it is under appeal and it is actually inappropriate, as you know, for us to really be carrying on specific debate on something that is before the court - Crown counsel were instructed to return all of the youths in the programme to court in order that their rights were fully respected. They have been placed in detention status under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. So they are quite effectively and legally within the programme, and they are being taken care of.

I'd like to mention one thing about that: the government of Canada, in young offenders' proposals and legislation, have put a lot of work into it but they are nowhere near coming to a conclusion for the better of part of two or three - I'd even guess four or five - years on the point in question. Perhaps the word "thrilled" is too strong a word, but they are extremely supportive of the direction that we have taken in this province. It is a correct direction because we had youngsters who were not able to be taken care of under the existing system. Without debating last year's bill, there were some youngsters who were not able to be held accountable to the extent of their maturity. Through this programme, they are now accountable. It is working successfully and it will continue to work success-

[ Page 2047 ]

fully.

Whether or not the decision goes one way or the other.... As we know, it is a fairly thin line which has been debated and discussed in the Supreme Court of Canada at the present time in a variety of cases between the administration of justice, on the one hand, a provincial responsibility, and on the other hand, the Criminal Code and the Juvenile Delinquents Act being that of the federal government. I think there is not a province in Canada that is not trying to take these local initiatives and local directions. I don't think anybody in the House will quarrel with that.

Insofar as legal advertising is concerned, you referred to the benchers having a press release. Yes, they came to a conclusion dated June 2 that there will be a recommendation coming forth to the meeting of the Law Society as a whole, which I gather will be in the early fall.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, there will be debate at the annual meeting, but I gather the position on the rulings will be considered at the meetings in the fall. The material is to the effect that the bench is resolved that the Law Society should consider and develop advertising in accordance with these recommendations: the name of the member and his or her law firm, its partners and associates; street and cable address - telephone and so forth; languages spoken by the members; the date of call and admission to the society; the degrees or graduate status; and restrictions on the extent of the member's or firm's practice or statement that the member is in general practice.

When we are talking about advertising for the legal profession, please don't restrict it just to that, because you are not really doing service to the issue. The issue is whether or not it is in the interest of the professions -and in the interest of all of the professions and the general public that they advertise.

can assure you of one thing, the costs involved - whatever is spent on it - are certainly going to be costs passed through to the consumer. So there is going to be a higher rate for somebody to pay.

A variety of professions - the legal profession is one - do have schedules of fees and those are open for public inspection. People can get in touch with a Law Society office at any point in time and receive the particulars of that. It is one of the few professions - in fact, I think as far as I know it's the only one - that is self-regulated to the extent that the bill of an individual can be appraised and taxed. If a person doesn't feel that he has received appropriate service for the amount involved, that would go before a registrar of the court and eventually in front of the court itself for final disposition. So that is a check and balance which is not available in the other professions.

I think, hon. member, that this question of advertising was considered, as I believe I stated in either a press statement or in this House, by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the restriction of it was certainly found to be invalid as being contrary to the combine laws down there. I imagine that this is one of the issues that is now before the court here. Similarly, on that issue it would apply to any of the professions.

In one state in the United States that I have some information on, they have already indicated certain specific rules and regulations. I'm reading from the Sun, of some particular date not too long ago: "In Atlanta, the Georgia supreme court cleared the way Friday for lawyers to begin advertising in radio and television but said: 'Members of the bar must not employ hucksterism, puffery or belly-dancers in their commercials.' " You have to commend the Georgia supreme court for its wisdom in that regard.

So it is a matter that is being considered by the legal profession itself, and conceivably it's a matter that should be considered by all of the professions, and 'certainly by the general public. But, hon. members, when you have advertising - as I said at the outset of these remarks - the cost of that advertising will be borne by the consumer.

I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to the question about Mr. Phillips. Yes, when Mr. Phillips accepted the position on the Police Commission, it was on the understanding that he would be in that position and politics at that point in time were not in his mind. Then Mr. Phillips had a change of mind as a result of a variety of reasons. He chose to enter federal politics, and that very day he communicated with me and submitted his resignation, which I think was appropriate in the circumstances.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, my criticism is that the Attorney-General should have had some understanding with Mr. Phillips that he would serve for a period of time, a year or two. To bring somebody in there.... It's a wasted episode in the fight against crime.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There was an understanding.

[ Page 2048 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there was an understanding. But it amounts to nothing, eh? It could be broken in three and a half months and you've nothing to go on.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Don't start penalizing poor Phillips.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I know; but I don't think that the Attorney-General should have appointed a man without a firm understanding. I don't think he should have accepted the job - neither one. I think it's treating the B.C. Police Commission pretty lightly to have that kind of thing. I was looking at their annual report and they didn't even have a picture of Arthur Phillips in the annual report, because they figured he'd been such a fly-by-night that he didn't warrant getting his picture in, even though he was chairman for a short period of time. I say that that's not good enough, that when you make appointments to the serious positions in government, you should have an agreement that the man is really dedicated to the job, and he is not going off to take a nomination for some party that the Attorney-General may have belonged to at some time when he still had a little more sanity than he does today.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak about the juveniles, and then I want to say something about advertising.

The Attorney-General is now operating under NDP laws, because the Corrections Amendment Act is declared unconstitutional. You're sending people to Centre Creek, as we did, as a condition of probation. I just wonder if there wasn't an awful lot of politics in that Corrections Amendment Act, because lie says now: "There's no change; we're getting along fine; everything's operated as before." Well, what was all that fuss about? Was that to satisfy the rednecks and the back bench of the coalition government? We kind of suspected it was a political gesture, PR-oriented, a political solution to a social problem; today we know. You're doing as well as you ever did under the same laws. The powers are there to be judiciously used.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not quite as good.

MR. MACDONALD: Not quite as well?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, because you can overload the system.

MR. MACDONALD: Not quite as well, because I think we were doing pretty well too. But I do agree, Mr. Chairman, that we do finally need some action from the federal government on that Young Offenders Act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's four years down the line.

MR. MACDONALD: Four years? Well that's rushing for the government in Ottawa. I've been watching that for years - no progress at all.

Now on advertising the Attorney-General is like a big brother speaking up for the lawyers. He says to the little guys who might get a divorce - and I read out some examples -for $150: "Oh, if you do that, you're going to have to pay for the cost of the ad; it's going to be passed down to you." But maybe the public, who've had nothing to say about this issue - and they're very interested in it -say: "I'm willing to pay for the ad as long as I can find out the figures, because I think that the figures are going to be better than what I'm finding out at the present time." That's the point we're making, Mr. Chairman. We're not devising the regulation of advertising - there was to be some regulation, obviously. What I'm saying is that the Attorney-General's statement - which he repeats today - that it is good enough to leave it to the lawyers to decide that public question, is simply not good enough for the chief law officer of the Crown.

Loll mention one other subject before relinquishing the floor.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want me to make a point on the advertising before you sit down, Alex? In response concerning the advertising aspect, I would inform the hon. member that my colleagues, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , have shared concerns with me over the way in which the public interest is or isn't being served by the self-governing professions.

The deputy ministers have been requested to meet, and have met, and assigned members of their staff to put together proposals for possible ways to approach a study of the self-governing professions. So that's a matter that is underway.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I just don't think that's good enough. I know that the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs went to the meeting of the Labour inquiry, I think, and he stated his view very fairly. But again I say there has been a lack of leadership by the Attorney-General's ministry in this matter in terms of defending the

[ Page 2049 ]

public interest, in making sure there is a voice for the public and it isn't simply the profession that makes the decision.

The Attorney-General, in opening the estimates, said something that 1 think refers to the investigation into the 402 alleged break-ins by RCMP officers in the province of British Columbia. Now I have a great deal of sympathy for the police officers in terms of the modern world. I think there is a great need for guidance as to things such as interception of mail, which sometimes is important. You might have some kidnapped child in a basement somewhere, or you might have the terrorist thing. But I think it has to be done judicially and under warrant and with protections for the public, and it has to be done in a way that can become open - not at the time, but it must become open.

But what the Attorney-General forgot, when lie made his remark that he was going to investigate this thing and make a report on it, was that there is an allegation here of breach of the law, just as there was an allegation of breach of the law under the Constitution Act by members of this House. That was something that demanded attention and could not be ignored. I think the Attorney-General so far has had a very.... I don't know what this investigation is and, with all respect to Mr. Dick Vogel who is sitting across there and who I've already paid my respects to, I don't think he should be in charge of that investigation, because he's made a forthright sort of political statement on the matter. It was a good statement, as he saw it. I don't agree with it. He shouldn't be in charge of it and I think what we have really is no investigation at all in an area where there might have been a breach of the law which should be before a court somewhere.

Now out of that 402 I'm sure a lot of them would be perfectly justifiable under existing laws - I would think so, I don't know - but some may not be, and it's those some that may not be that should be rigorously investigated so that the public will know that the law is being evenly enforced. They know that from the statements that have been made by the Attorney-General in the last little while. "I'm making an inquiry. I'm making it through my deputy. I'm going to get a report. I don't know what it is going to say; I don't know when you'll have it." I don't think the Attorney-General understands that his function may also be law-enforcement and fair administration of the law so that nobody can stand up and say they got into trouble and had to defend themselves in some respect and somebody else didn't, because he was an officer of some kind or he was a dignitary of some kind. Now that's a very dangerous thing to creep in and that's what the Attorney-General is sitting on. The kind of casual investigation, where he's going to look at this thing, is not sufficient.

I think that at the very least, he should bring in an independent person to make the investigation to see if there has been lawbreaking for which anybody should be accountable in this province. And with all respect to the police force, I mean it when I say I don't think they would object to seeing fair enforcement of the law, even though they're not involved, because their respect in the community depends upon even enforcement of the law. That is not happening, and only a strong, independent person, acting in the province of British Columbia.... You can't wait for that MacDonald commission to come down for years and years. How long will those Liberals take?

But something came out suggesting that the law is not being evenly enforced in the province of British Columbia and the Attorney-General says: "111 get a report from my deputy and then I'll file something with you some day." That's not good enough. That is not even enforcement of the laws.

Mr. Chairman, let me refer to one other matter. You've got a jam-up in the coroner's courts in terms of suicides in Oakalla and the B.C. Penitentiary, and they come because of the frightful conditions, particularly of Oakalla, which is under the Attorney-General's jurisdiction. In the month of April there were three young men between the ages of about 18 and 21, whose names I have but won't put on the record, who committed suicide in Oakalla and one in the Pen, and there have been about nine in the last few months. It's a little epidemic of suicides, and it is partly because the programme to phase out Oakalla. and improve the inhuman conditions of the Dickensian place has come to a stop.

There have been no inquests. Now there are going to be. I spoke to the coroner. You have a very good man as the regional district coroner in the person of Mr. Doug Jacks. He's doing his best, but he hasn't been given the personnel. He needed the spur of the publicity surrounding these suicides, which was very slow in developing, to be able to say: "I'm going to go after the Attorney-General and finally get enough personnel to be able to do my job." But he hasn't been able to do his job up to the present time. He needs a deputy, and he hasn't got one. It is not good in terms of the administration of the correction services or the administration of justice that inquests will be held, as they must be under the law,

[ Page 2050 ]

months after when the backlog is somehow caught up with. They should be held promptly, Mt. Chairman, and the conditions that led to someone taking their life in custody should be examined and the recommendations should be on the record and the necessary amendments should be made to the facility as to the conditions, or the medical help available, or the kind of supervision that should be given somebody who had been out in Riverview and then sent back into the jail system or something of that kind. But it is not happening, and I say it should happen.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to discuss it under that vote or under this one?

MR. MACDONALD: No, we'll discuss it now, because I think there has been a failure of the Attorney-General to recognize the importance of the inquest procedure. I think there's been a failure of the Attorney-General to recognize the importance of that because the new Coroners' Act has been on the books since 1975.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did you hear what I said at the beginning?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that it's going to be proclaimed. But I would have thought a government of efficient businessmen would not take two and a half years to proclaim an Act which, as far as I know, is unobjectionable and greatly strengthens the reporting function of people out in the community.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It will strengthen their function.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but why the delay for all of this time? One of the reasons I needed a new Coroners' Act, or felt I did when I sat on that side of the House, was because some of the things that were happening were not reported, the autopsies were late, or there was something and by the time we heard about it it was too late.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why didn't you proclaim it?

MR. MACDONALD: We should have.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Right.

MR. MACDONALD: If we had thought for a minute that that gang had collected enough money to put us out of office we would have done that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Once again the members of the committee seem to have neglected the fact that the Chairman is trying to keep order. Perhaps if the members would address the Chair and wait until they are recognized to speak....

MR. MACDONALD: If we had known what that coalition vms up to, Mr. Chairman, even though we weren't prepared in terms of naming the chief coroner.... The new Act was passed very late in 1975.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You were broke.

MR. MACDONALD: We were not broke. We had had three balanced budgets and every year we had shown a surplus. They laugh about that, but they don't give figures any more. They don't debate. At the beginning, a year ago, these guys would have said: "Oh, the NDP government was really broke." Now they're beginning just a little bit to worry about whether they were right on that point. We never had a more successful three and a half years in this province financially than we had under those NDP years.

I'll go out and debate with any one of those backbenchers, as long as he's not too articulate, on that subject. I'll debate with the Hon. Pat McGeer, the hon. Minister of Education, on that subject. in Point Grey or anywhere else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On vote 16.

MR. MACDONALD: I know you haven't been responsible, Mr. Chairman. We've been conned about the finances. Are you going to speak on this subject of the coroners?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Which would you prefer?

MR. MACDONALD: I'm still speaking.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, I'll speak about the coroners then.

MR. MACDONALD: It's good for your knees to pop up, but you did not make the floor.

I want to ask the Attorney-General another question. The federal government, God bless them, have a way with spending money that makes all of us look like rank amateurs. You know, the Trudeau administration is unbelievably loose with the dollar. I do not want to offend the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , if he's in the House or listening, but we have seen all these grants going out. Well, one comes to the Attorney-General - $116,000. In

[ Page 2051 ]

the Trudeau years that is a nothing, and it was to have a study as to people's so-called attitudes to the justice system. I've got the survey, and the Attorney-General knows all about this.

It was that crazy survey that had all these.... It's sort of a word association game. "What do you think about a male single parent?" Well, I can tell what anybody thinks about a male single parent by the way they purse their lips. I don't need to spend $116,000 of what is basically my money as well as everybody else's on finding out a thing like that.

What does a Social Crediter think about a strike? Do you have to spend $116,000? This is really the worst boondoggle in terms of the waste of money. I'm not going to bother referring very much to the fact that it had political questions in it too. I think maybe they were the only sensible ones, Mr. Chair man, in that crazy survey. But the Attorney

General said that he didn't even know it was happening. It was being administered by his ministry through the Justice Development Commission.

The statements in the papers are that your deputy had to tell you that this little boondoggle was going on and being run by the people in your ministry, on our time as the provincial government, although the grant came from Ottawa. He can't know everything, but I think again that's a failure of the Attorney-General in terms of administration of his ministry. I ask him: did he know about that survey?

HON. MR. GARDOM: About the boondoggle?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, boondoggle is the word. A totally wasteful.... If there's any Canadian disease, it's studies and inquiries and royal commissions, and then when the public began to get a little fed up with all those things, they used the word task force. They said: "Oh, it's a task force." That's really rolling up your sleeve and it sounds much better to say you're spending thousands of dollars, and in many cases millions, on a task force. It makes you feel better.

But here's an example of pure waste of public money in the Attorney-General's ministry, and the only questions that made any sense were the political ones. They asked: "Are you a Socred, or what are you?" I don't mind a political survey at any time. It shouldn't be with public money, but at least those questions were understandable. They made some sense.

The Attorney-General didn't know anything about it. It's a two-year study and it's going to go on for another year and a half, I presume. The Attorney-General said, "I will cut out the political questions, " which are the only clear-cut ones in the whole survey. Of course he had to cut them out.

I'm asking the Attorney-General why he did not protest back to the Solicitor-General of Canada and say: "Now it's nice to spend some of our money as taxpayers on this crazy thing, but it's a waste of money and it's a waste of the time of my officials. Spend the money on planting trees or something productive for the country, rather than on this kind of word association game."

Is that programme still going on? It is. The Attorney-General answers "yes". it's going right through. Our civil servants are carrying it out. You know, I just say that surely I wouldn't mind a class in political science at the universities going out on that kind of survey. They would learn something. I think they would frame better questions than these.

I say that's a terrible boondoggle, that the Attorney-General should have known about it, and that he is an accomplice in the boondoggle.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh!

MR. MACDONALD: Of course you are! It takes two to boondoggle between the federals and the provincials, and you are a partner in this thing. The political questions are only part of it. This is not good administration of the justice money of Canada and the Attorney-General should not be part of such a ridiculous survey as that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, concerning the remarks re coroners - and I take it, Mr. Chairman, we are going to be going helter-skelter through all the votes, because we do have a separate vote on coroners - I would draw to the attention of the hon. member that the vote has been increased by $218,500-odd, with an increase of three personnel to assist in taking care of the difficulty in the New Westminster office, wherein the budget for New Westminster has been increased from $84,000 to $200,000. You are quite correct that there is a problem in New Westminster, and that is the reason it has been so addressed in the budgetary process and in the estimates.

Dealing with the boondoggle and the allegation that I am the accomplice to the boondoggle, I must honestly inform the hon. members that the father of the boondoggle is the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . I would draw to your attention, Father Boon-

[ Page 2052 ]

doggle, that the application for project funding was made by the Justice Development Commission to the federal Department of the Solicitor-General in August, 1975.

MR. MACDONALD: Not for this project; it's a federal project.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was made when you, sir, were occupying this chair. The application was accepted, and funding in the amount ' of $116,000 was received. I'm sure this must come as a great surprise to you. In the event that it doesn't, I'm perhaps just refreshing your memory.

As far as the questionnaire was concerned, when the matter came to my attention concerning the question I figured inappropriate for the purposes of a study like that, the question was withdrawn. The $116,000 hardly represents the questionnaire itself, and I'm sure the hon. member - since the matter was initiated during his term of office - has full particulars of the concept and the intent of the plan.

MR. MACDONALD: That's not true. It came through in 1977.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the controversy with respect to legal advertising - that is, advertising by lawyers - is becoming more amusing every day.

I was sent a brief a year or so ago by one of the chaps that wants to advertise. Having a look at some of the other people that are advertising, I'm wondering whether the saying secretly going around the Law Society - that there are good lawyers and there are those that need to advertise - isn't true. Nevertheless, I received a brief and there was a list of fees that were supposed to be the kind of saving that the public will get from this particular individual that wanted, among other things, to advertise. I looked at that list of fees on his schedule and I said: "For most of these items, my fees are well below that." I said to myself: "Self, I've got to revise my fee schedule." So it might have an opposite effect, Mr. Chairman.

When the Attorney-General suggests that the costs of advertising will only be passed on to the consumer, he has really made the argument that we social democrats have made for years and years and years - we're against all advertising. I'll tell you why: the costs are passed on to the consumer. That's why.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Couldn't you get this decided in caucus?

MR. LAUK: When you have part of society that is involved in a commercial world and is able to advertise and part of it is restricted, you have a discrimination and an injustice. You can't say that the lawyers and doctors are different than the rest of society, because that is elitism. Certainly people who are doctors and lawyers in society, because of their special position of trust within that society, must be controlled very strictly, unlike the buccaneer approach in the economy at large.

I noticed when we banned advertising for liquor that it didn't bring the price down. It brought it up. So I'm not too convinced with that argument.

MR. GIBSON: What's your point?

MR. LAUK: My point is that I'm like the Attorney-General, I don't want to offend anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then sit down.

MR. LAUK: That's not why I rose. The controversy over advertising in the legal profession is becoming a little bit ludicrous, a 'little bit ridiculous.

But I do want to talk about statements made by the Deputy Attorney-General that never have been clarified by the Attorney-General with respect to the illegal break-ins by the RCMP. I've never been satisfied. The Attorney-General has been quiet with respect to those statements. Nor have we had the courtesy from the Attorney-General of clarifying statements which, if taken on their face value as reported in the Globe and Mail, indicate that the Deputy Attorney-General has absolutely no concept of his role or yours - I say to the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman -as the chief and deputy chief law enforcement officers of this province.

The statements were these. When the revelation occurred back east with respect to break-ins involving the RCMP, the Deputy Attorney-General stated: "Well, people out in B.C. aren't getting very excited about it, and they're not terribly concerned. I think the solution should be that we should pass a law that makes illegal break-ins legal." Now I'll tell you why I think that is a very serious revelation about the Deputy Attorney-General, and there has been plenty of time for the Attorney-General to take the onus and protect his deputy. He has not done so. lie's not stood in his place in this chamber and clarified the statements made by the Deputy Attorney-

[ Page 2053 ]

General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not true, Gary.

MR. LAUK: What that clearly indicates is that the law is good for some in this country and not good for others. One thing about a democratic society is that you don't put a uniform on someone and make them above the law. You don't make someone Attorney-General, Deputy Attorney-General, Prime Minister or monarch in our democratic system and, by so doing, make them above the law.

The statement of the Deputy Attorney-General clearly indicated the attitude that the RCMP were above the law. I'm not entering into a question about whether or not the RCMP should be involved in security or intelligence work and so on - that's another point altogether. The fact is that if the actions of the RCMP are illegal, then the RCMP must be prosecuted and they must be prosecuted within the jurisdiction. The Attorney-General has the power of the administration of justice and it's the Attorney-General who should bring prosecution against any lawbreakers, including people in uniform.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that it's not popular to attack the RCMP. It's absolutely a disgrace in this country that no right-thinking politician or individual citizen. can stand in this country and criticize individual members of the RCMP for lawbreaking without being pasted by the media as being anti-RCMP. I don't mean to attack the media, because I think the media in this country, together with a few politicians in Ottawa, are the only ones who are pursuing this question of the RCMP, and the public's asleep on the matter. That's a crying shame. A member of the media said a few months ago from Ottawa that he could weep for his country when he sees the lethargy with which these tremendous breaches of the Criminal Code by the RCMP are greeted by the general public of Canada. I certainly pray and hope that it's a short-lived attitude on their part.

But to have that attitude condoned and blessed by the deputy chief law enforcement officer of this province, with virtual silence from the Attorney-General, should be totally condemned. I hope that the Attorney-General will rise and dispense with that cloud over the administration of justice in this province. And while he's at it, could he explain to me how last year he dismissed the break-ins of the RCMP as being a problem largely of the east, not reflected in this province - which gave the clear inference to those of us in this province that first, the Attorney-General was aware of RCMP activities, and secondly, that those illegal break-ins occurred negligibly, if at all, in B.C. Those were the two logical inferences that we could draw from this chief law enforcement officer. Recent revelations show us that of the 419 break-ins, 402 were in B.C.

Nobody has noted that in the press.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Has it been noted in the press? Well, it should be noted again.

How can the Attorney-General in charge of the administration of justice not know that there were 402 illegal break-ins, when that knowledge was well known by the RCMP? If that's the way the RCMP are going to conduct the affairs of the administration of justice in this province, we should get rid of them and form our own provincial police. If you can't control the RCMP's activities in this province, Mr. Chairman - I say to the Attorney-General - then get rid of them. If you don't know what they are doing, then either you find out what they're doing or resign.

Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General does not know what the RCMP are doing in this province.... Well, look, let me just put it this way. Does he now know? Can he assure the chamber and the people of this province that the RCMP are within the law and that he is aware of their activities in this province at all levels? If he doesn't know, what steps is he taking to protect the public of this province against the illegal activities of the national police force?

You know, when I am arguing about the activities of the RCMP, it should be known that one of the great tragedies in this country is not the attack on or besmirching of the name of the RCMP - it is the fact that we have to do that. We've got to separate the individuals of that police force who are guilty of wrongdoing in key areas from the force as a whole, which is internationally known as one of the best and most efficient police forces in the world.

MR. LEA: They spread it themselves.

MR. LAUK: No, I think it's generally true. I've known, Mr. Member, of jurisdictions outside this country where they don't have that kind of efficient police force and where the inequities of the administration of justice vary from town to town and county to county and state to state. You know what jurisdiction I'm talking about. The kind of injustices you get in those jurisdictions on a

[ Page 2054 ]

local level are astounding. We've got to congratulate a force that has been with us for 100 years, giving us the kind of equitable law enforcement within the province for that period of time.

But now is the time for the kind of reform that I'm talking about. Can the Attorney-General assure the opposition and assure the public that he's now aware of the activities of the RGMP, that there is no illegal activity being undertaken by them currently, and that he's aware of any further transgressions or illegal activities that may have been committed in the past that may be revealed to us through the Macdonald commission?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member, I don't think he was in the House when I initiated my opening remarks, but I did state that I did request the ministerial officials to undertake complete review of the issues of the way society controls crime and the requirement for full accountability of those people who perform that service to ensure that we're receiving not only maximum police efficiency, but maximum accountability of those institutions. Now that is ongoing at the present time, as are considerations of material that have, at this point in time, been made available to the ministry from the Macdonald royal commission.

I said that if there's a requirement - I want to stress this point - for us to proceed further, we're going to proceed further. The initiative is not yet completed; the matter is ongoing. Unfortunately, it's not really possible for me today to further develop that concept. But I want to say, as I said earlier today, that all of the people in this province expect their fellow citizens to abide by the law, whatever their position in society or their vocation may be, and the Crown certainly has the responsibility to see that that happens.

Insofar as the remarks of the, deputy were concerned, this was a statement that he gave to the press as to his impression at that point in time of what his feeling was of public feeling. With every respect, I don't necessarily subscribe to that, but he said, as far as my reading is concerned, the community will tolerate unlawful activity in the police force. That seems to be the message, but he carried on: "But as deputy attorney, I an very concerned that this doesn't become a way of life." We're looking for proper accountability; we're looking for effective modus operandi. The matters that are before the Macdonald royal commission are matters that initiated in 1972 until 1976. At this point in time, it's just not possible for me to go any further than I can now go because it is an ongoing investigation, an ongoing report and ongoing material that we are receiving. It's not yet finalized.

I anticipate that we will be having members of the ministry or regional Crown meeting with members of the Macdonald royal commission and determining if any additional information is available. I hope that will take place fairly shortly.

MR. LAUK: I just want to thank the Attorney-General for the other information. I want the clarification of the Attorney-General with respect to the comments made by his deputy. His deputy was quoted as saying that these illegal activities should be made legal because we can't make tolerance of lawbreaking by the public a way of life. Now those were the inferences that have been drawn across the country. They still haven't been clarified, to my knowledge. Can the Attorney-General assure this House that simply because people find the breaking of the law acceptable, we're going to change the law? That certainly cannot be a criterion for changing the law. I want to know whether that is the opinion of the government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: So that we don't have any misunderstanding between ourselves, the question that you are referring to was in answer to a hypothetical question. If the police do require additional powers to carry on these methods of surveillance, these methods of entry and so forth and so on, other than the powers that are now available under the law, then the law will have to be mended to take care of that.

You well know and so do I and so does every member of this House that the criminal element is not playing by any kind of ground rules at all. Organized crime is something that is reasonably prevalent on the North American continent. We have got to make sure that our law enforcement officers are adequately and properly equipped to deal with that. But, yes, they have to deal with it according to the law. I make no bones about that.

MR. LAUK: Through our own sources in Ottawa, I'm told that of the 402 break-ins, there was just a handful that had anything to do with Criminal Code breaches or breaches of the Narcotic Control Act, which means to me that they were all security and intelligence break-ins. Can you confirm that? The general public is of the view that it has to do mostly with the Narcotic Control Act, and that was my view

[ Page 2055 ]

until we heard, mostly just by rumour ....

HON. MR. GARDOM: But is it rumour or is it fact? You may be dispelling something that is only rumour....

MR. LEA: Rumour can be fact.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's true, rumour can be fact. But is it correct rumour or incorrect rumour? I don't think you are really doing a service to the force or to the process to indicate that you have received rumours. You can receive a rumour by walking around the hall of this building if you go around twice.

MR. LAUK: You're liable to receive the same one you started.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Right. That's what's known as recycling. That's going too far. Maybe you only need one leap around the building.

I don't think that will do service to the issue. As I said before and will say again, when this matter is completed it is going to be made completely and fully public. If we are in session, and we don't know quite how long the session is going to go, that will certainly be tabled and made available to the Legislature.

MR. LAUK: When?

HON. MR. GARDOM: When it's complete.

MR. LAUK: When is that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: When it's finished.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General assure the chamber that all of the facts will be revealed when the report is completed, and that he won't table the report the day after the House is prorogued or the day after his estimates are completed?

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's what your friend used to do.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, 1 won't be here this evening, so if the Attorney-General does not get an opportunity to answer this now, maybe he will later and I can get it from the Blues.

I'd like to talk about what I consider to be one of the biggest rackets in British Columbia, and that's the money lawyers charge for conveyancing of property. It's one of the biggest rackets in the province. I doubt that we are going to see a change, because the Attorney-General is always a lawyer.

When you go in to buy a house in this province, those lawyers rip you right off; that's what they do. You don't pay a uniform price for a uniform amount of work. What they do is they charge you a different amount of money depending on the price of the house you are conveying - no more work. As a matter of fact, there probably aren't very many lawyers in this province who know how to do a conveyance anyway. The girls do it. The women in the office do it, that's who does it. Most lawyers don't even know how to do it. They've probably never even seen one. They are ripping off the women who are doing it. They are ripping everyone off, all the way around, on conveyances. I'd like to know whether the Attorney-General is going to put an end to this big ripoff.

Sooner or later everybody in this province who buys a house gets ripped off by the lawyers, in collusion with the mortgage companies to make sure they get their pound of flesh out of every transaction that goes through. Sometimes that can be just enough money that people can't afford to buy a house and to get into their own home. There's no reason for it. The lawyers don't know how to do a conveyance.

Why doesn't the Attorney-General bring in some legislation or change the regulations so that those women who are doing the conveyancing now can set up their offices somewhere else and do them a darn sight cheaper because they won't have to cut their boss in on it, who does nothing for the money anyway? I'd like to hear the Attorney-General's ideas on conveyancing of property. In my opinion, it is one of the biggest rip-offs going on in this province. The lawyers won't talk about it, because they're the ones who are doing the ripping off.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, there is no law preventing an individual from doing his or her own conveyancing. Forms are available if they choose to develop them themselves and register them themselves. That's up to them to do it at the present time.

MR. LEA: No, it isn't.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes. I know what the member is going to say: "No, it isn't." It's not in the situations, I suppose, of the mortgage lenders...

MR. LEA: That's right. If you have cash, it's no problem.

[ Page 2056 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: ... who insist that the documents are drawn by their own solicitors, because they're the people whose money is at risk and they choose to take that route. But it's still open to anyone who is paying those kinds of fees, if they're inappropriate, to have them taxed.

MR. LEA: It is not. Mr. Chairman, it is not up to the person who's buying the house as to whether or not he goes to a lawyer to get the conveyancing done. It's specified that you have to go to a lawyer by the mortgage company. The mortgage company and Central Mortgage Company are in cahoots with the lawyers. You go to a bank and try to get the money and they'll send you to the right lawyer. If you do not go there, you don't get the money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberal lawyers.

MR. LEA: Liberal lawyers, that's right. If you're not on the Liberal lawyers list, you don't get the darned mortgage and you don't get anything. That's the way it is. So the individual who's going to buy a house or transfer a piece of property - how many people pay cash for their house? - goes to a mortgage company. They go to the bank and they borrow the money. They insist that you get the conveyancing done not only at a lawyer's but at their lawyer's, and they rip you off. Lawyers do not even know how to do conveyancing. They rip off their help and they rip off the customer, and I'd like to see something done about it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We are expecting visitors to the House within the next few moments, Mr. Chairman. So, by virtue of that, I move that the committee report great resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier's place is in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a home.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. If all members would move to their places, I will call you at the appropriate moment.

The House took recess at 5:51 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:53 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1978

Provincial Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1978

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.