[ Page 3929 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Attorney-General estimates, (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3929

Ms. Brown

Mr. Hall

Mr. Davis

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Cocke

THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Crown corporations committee is desirous of sitting this morning. I would ask leave to make a motion.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I therefore move that the Crown corporations committee be permitted to sit this morning during this session of the Legislature.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21: minister's office, $155,343.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things I would like to raise this morning with the Attorney-General. I'll start off, first of all, by saying that I'd like to express some misgivings about the awesome powers of the benchers.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. The benchers, Mr. Chairman, are probably — as far as we know — the most powerful group in terms of the secret workings of its organization and its lack of accountability to anyone at all.

MR. MACDONALD: Be careful now. I'm a son of a bencher.

MS. BROWN: Well, I think sons of benchers are excluded from the comments I'm about to make.

I am little bit disturbed, Mr. Chairman, about the inconsistency and the uneven way in which the benchers dispense what is certainly their conception of justice, and I am wondering whether the Attorney-General should not be looking at the possibility of at least putting in a number of lay people to monitor the decisions made by the benchers and to have some kind of input into their workings. Now I recognize that once the benchers have decided to disbar someone, he can appeal this; but the costs involved sometimes make this a not very realistic thing to do.

I have no opposition to the fact that what they are supposed to be doing is protecting the community at large.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please. Hon. members, there appears to be an awful lot of noise and interruption of the speaker. I wonder if all members could come to attention, please.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I think the interruption is probably organized by the benchers, because they didn't support what I'm about to say.

One of the things that really disturbs me about the inconsistent way in which they hand out justice.... If I can cite a specific case — if the Attorney-General is listening....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Once again. I will remind the committee that the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor. There appears to be an awful lot of side conversation going on, and that is a clear interruption of Committee of Supply.

MS. BROWN: There was a case recently, Mr. Chairman, involving a woman who practises law in this province who was acquitted by the courts of the province of the accusations made against her in terms of her relationship with one of her clients. Despite the fact that the courts found her not guilty, the benchers have taken it upon themselves not necessarily to disbar her, but to suspend her for three years, and then to insist that after that period of time she has to work with another lawyer for two years and then write the bar exams all over again — which is fair enough. If the benchers were dispensing that kind of justice to everyone. But one doesn't have to be a lawyer: one need only read the press reports of the activities of other lawyers — and some judges — to know that the benchers did not deal in exactly the same way with those other specific cases. Very recently we had a case reported in the newspaper of a lawyer who acted on behalf of both the vendor and the purchaser on a piece of property which he owned. He was forced to repay $30,000 to his clients because he had hidden from these two women the fact that he was the owner of the property. That was clearly unbecoming conduct, yet the benches have not seen fit to do anything about that.

There are a number of other instances, as I said, where not only lawyers but judges have gone up before the courts and the benches have done nothing about it. This particular woman had to continue paying her fees to the benchers, because they said they would not consider her case if she were not a member in good standing. So during all of this period from 1977 until now she has been paying her fees so that she can remain an active member of the legal community. They have, as I said, suspended her for three years, No attempts have been made to refund the fees which she has been paying during this period of time. I'm not questioning the way in which the benchers behave, Mr. Chairman. What I'm questioning is their inconsistency, and the fact that they seem to treat some of the cases that come before them differently than they treat others. I'm not going so far as to accuse them of sexism. It's very strange the way they dealt with this woman, but maybe that's the way they do it.

What I would like to see is some kind of lay auditing. some lay monitoring of the benches. In this day and age it's not good enough for any private society or group in the community to be totally locked in itself and not have anyone else able to look in on their deliberations and give some input from outside. That. very briefly, is what 17 wanted to say about the benchers.

The main thing that I wanted to deal with today is the fact that at the first ministers conference on the constitution,

[ Page 3930 ]

which was held in February of this year, the provincial government indicated to the federal government that it would like to see jurisdiction over marriage and divorce transferred to the provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: Last year.

MS. BROWN: Yes, 1979.

I recognize why the provinces are asking for jurisdiction over divorce. The Attorney-General thinks that this is one way of dealing with the problems of the family relations legislation: if in fact the province had jurisdiction over all matters dealing with marriage and divorce, it would probably be possible for the Family Relations Act to run more smoothly. But I think it may not be a bad idea for the Attorney-General to get some input from someone who has a different point of view and perspective on this particular issue.

I want to clarify that when I speak I am not speaking on behalf of all women, but I am certainly speaking on behalf of those women who would not like to see the province have jurisdiction over divorce. I am speaking on behalf of those women who believe that the rules governing divorce should be national in scope. In other words, every person in Canada, regardless of what province they live in, should have to meet the same kind of criteria in terms of the decisions being made about whether or not they should have a divorce.

That is the point of view I am going to be presenting. I understand that that is certainly the position being taken by the Canadian Bar Association. They again came out against the fractionalization of divorce at their meeting in Calgary last year. I understand that even the B.C. bar itself is not fully in support of divorce being placed in the hands of the provinces. There are a couple of reasons for this that I want to talk about. In doing this I am going to be quoting extensively from a number of briefs which were presented by women's groups at conferences throughout Canada — in Manitoba, Alberta, Ottawa, and various places. I believe there has certainly been a lot of input at that level — not at the level of the MacGuigan report, because women didn't have input at that level but in terms of appearing before bar associations and various other hearings. The input has been that for the most part there is no support for this position on the part of the provincial government. Women recognize that in this country we still have unequal treatment under the law.

To transfer the jurisdiction of divorce from the federal government to the provincial government would really represent a move away from a goal of equality in treatment for all people. The multiplicity of laws which would result, in terms of the provinces' interpretations of the breakdown of marriages in different ways, couldn't help but exacerbate the inequities which we are presently fighting against. Having a federal code is one battle that we don't have to fight now. By changing it and giving each province this kind of jurisdiction, all the government would be doing would be giving women another battle to fight in terms of inequities and inequalities.

Most of the positions stated in the MacGuigan report seemed to really indicate that in terms of the law and of lawyers, it's easier and tidier if it's done by the provincial route. But that's not good enough. I think we have to look at it in terms of the impact it's going to have on women. It's going to impact on men and children too. I'm not saying that only women are going to feel the impact of it, but I'm speaking specifically from the woman's perception. Certainly most of the comments I have to make don't apply to men.

Maybe you can answer these questions for me, Mr. Attorney-General. How many women served on the special joint committee that made that report to the federal government? Our understanding is that there were no women serving on the special committee of the Bar Association, which supported it. Maybe you can tell me how many women were on the joint committee. Maybe you can tell me what sort of consultation the provincial government had with women's groups in coming to a decision on this issue. I have not been able to find any provincial women's groups in British Columbia which were consulted by the government before it decided to take this position at the first ministers' conference. Maybe you know of some women's groups you consulted. I would like to know who they are, because we would certainly like to be able to have some dialogue with them.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman.... And I'm quoting here from a discussion paper which was presented by Mr. Moir — I think his name is Donald.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don.

MS. BROWN: Don, that's right. This is his discussion paper to the branch and he talks about the chaos in the American divorce system. I think that that comparison is really a very good one, where each state has its own....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No? He says: "When we look at the chaos of the American divorce system, Canada has reason to be reassured that we have a national law of divorce. In order to overcome the human misery and the social and financial cost of the — multiple problems that state jurisdiction over divorce causes, the States are slowly moving towards uniform statutes, most notably in the field of custody." He also mentions Australia and other federal governments, other countries where, when the fractionalization or the balkanization of divorce was recognized as a hardship, which it was in terms of its impact on people, the move towards a national system is being implemented. We have a national one. We have a federal code, and we are talking about disbanding that and giving the provinces jurisdiction over this area.

I gather that one of the positions put forward by the report was that marriage is still seen as a matter of social and cultural character. I think it was in 1876 — or certainly back in the good old days — that marriage was considered a matter of social and cultural character. But that's changed. That's not the way it is anymore for those people who even bother to marry. It has now become, and certainly I hope it will become even more so, a matter of a partnership of equals working together — a social and economic partnership as well as a legal partnership of equals. That's what we're talking about. So to build a premise on an outmoded concept of marriage as being of social and cultural character doesn't make any sense. I think that recommendation might have held some water if it were done even 25 years ago. But the evolution of a different way of two people in a marriage relating to each other is certainly something the law is going to have to take account of sooner or later, and the sooner the better. I recognize that traditionally the law likes to run at least 100 years behind everything else, but even the law should now begin to be aware that marriage is changing.

When the recommendation is that the reason the provinces should have control over divorce, is because each

[ Page 3931 ]

province could adjust in terms of its own values, then that is precisely the reason why we do not support this concept. The idea of each province basing its rules of divorce on some sort of "its own particular values...." What values in British Columbia? We have such an amalgam of different ethnic and cultural groups.... Whose values are going to be the deciding values in terms of grounds for divorce? Take any other province across this country. Who is going to decide which is the prevailing value at the time? Does the value change when governments change? The whole idea of breaking it down into that concept is very frightening. The very arguments that this report used and based its recommendation for turning it over to the provinces on is the very reason why we don't want it turned over to the provinces. We don't want every province that you go to having a different set of values in terms of divorce. Then, of course, there's inequality again, right across the, country, in terms of where you live — whether you are eligible or not eligible, and what the settlement is or isn't would come into play. For example, in B.C. we have Catholic values, Unitarian values, Scientology values; there are so many other kinds of values.

We have managed to work out, on a national scale, some kinds of rules. They're not perfect, but they apply straight across the country, and it would be an absolute mistake to change that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Our values.

MS. BROWN: Oh, your values.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ours.

MS. BROWN: What I'm saying is that B.C.'s "our" may not be Manitoba's "our," may not be Prince Edward Island's "our." But Canada's "our" is Canada's "our," and that's the reason why we should stick with Canada's "our." Then it won't matter what province you live in; the "our" is the same. That is "our" as opposed to "hour." The hour is never the same.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I think we can look at the American experience. A number of people in talking about this say that we don't want to have the kind of Reno availability here, where one province has quick divorces. We don't want people rushing to Saskatchewan or Alberta for a quickie divorce, or being penalized because they live in Tory Ontario, or anything of'that nature.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a Freudian pause — a quickie.

MS. BROWN: Like a Mexican quickie divorce — that's what I was talking about.

The other thing, of course, is the economics. This is really very important as far as women are concerned. As you know, all the statistics show that we are falling further behind in terms of real income, job opportunities, assets, and all these kinds of things. It becomes very much an economic handicap once you start breaking it down in terms of different provinces. That is another reason why we are opposed to that concept.

If you look at legislative Houses across the country, Mr. Chairman, you find that the representation of women in these Houses is quite disproportionate in terms of our representation in the community at large. Again, this worries us in terms of the laws that will be framed. The input on the part of women is not going to be truly representative, because we are just not elected. We have 50-odd members here of which a handful — something like just over 10 percent — are women, and this is supposed to be the best provincial House in Canada in terms of the representation of women. Certainly in terms of drafting and framing laws at the provincial level, we are very concerned about the inequities being highlighted in that particular instance — the fact that we are not going to be a part of it.

I want to go back — reading again from Don Moir's paper, because I think he puts it in a very clear way — and put to the Attorney-General one of the problems that is illustrated, and ask for an interpretation.

"To illustrate the intricate problem, consider a wife born in Ontario, married in Manitoba to a husband born in Saskatchewan, and they take up residence in Manitoba. The husband is then posted to Quebec, and in the course of his employment the husband is then given a permanent posting. His wife in dismay has decided that she is not prepared to move from where she is living to join him. The wife takes the children with her and returns to Ontario.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Remember that is where she was born, even though she married in Manitoba a man born in Saskatchewan who is now living in Quebec. Does the Attorney-General have that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It doesn't matter where they are born.

MS. BROWN: What matters? Is where they're living the only thing that matters? This argument says that if she takes the children and returns to Ontario, where does she file for divorce? She files for divorce in Ontario. He is living in Quebec and is fighting the divorce. Where is the custody decision made?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Newfoundland.

MS. BROWN: In Newfoundland — precisely.

The fact of the matter is that the whole business of balkanizing the process of divorce is going to be confusing. The decisions are going to be uneven, inconsistent and a hardship on everyone. As I said, I am not speaking only on behalf of women, but certainly in terms of custody decisions, the costs involved and the whole business of kidnapping children, which is already a problem in Canada — can you imagine how that is going to be exacerbated and how much worse it is going to be if in fact we have a non-uniform system of custody rules, regulations and laws in this country, and non-uniform reasons for divorce across this country? I don't really believe that the past or present Attorney-General or the government of British Columbia really took this into account in making this recommendation to the federal government. I recognize that the decision was made to use this particular issue as a negotiating tool in the whole constitutional argument. That is what bothers me — the fact that in making some kind of political constitutional decisions and other things, the whole area of family and divorce law being used in this debate without taking into account the kinds of really negative experiences that will accrue to children and to

[ Page 3932 ]

women and to families in general if this goes through. I don't believe that unified family courts are the solution to everything in family law; I support unified family courts — I think we need them — but they are not enough just by themselves.

I think we need to have consistent, uniform, strong federal divorce laws that operate for everyone in this country, no matter where they live — that the same law applies. If the law is not fair and if the law is not good, let us amend that one law. Let us not have every province with its own divorce law based on its own "values," as was recommended by the MacGuigan report, Mr. Chairman; and let us not use it, really, in terms of negotiating on behalf of other constitutional issues.

I didn't touch on the matter of property, but that is certainly one of the things that is being dealt with under the Family Relations Act and one of the areas that the provincial government is having some problems with. All of the things that we're fighting for in terms of marriage being recognized as a partnership of equals....

I'm sorry the ex-Attorney-General is so bored he's yawning. I hope you have read the prestigious McGill Law Journal — I'm not pushing it because it's my alma mater, but they agree with me on this issue. They're not in support of the balkanization of divorce laws and, again, they cite the comparison with the American system. They say: "In the absence of compelling reasons for transferring competence over divorce from the federal parliament to the provincial legislature, it might be preferable to leave things as they stand." And I certainly agree with them. "Provincial competence could give rise to the very real perils of added litigations, inconsistent judgments regarding marital status and general confusion." That is absolutely what we're afraid of, and I would strongly endorse their recommendation to try to improve and amend the existing federal act. Let's not start splitting it up in terms of the different provinces.

Mr. Chairman, very quickly because the green light is on, I just want to say two things.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You know, that minister is never interested in anything except budworms.

MR. LEA: You would be too if you had them.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

Mr. Chairman, very quickly to the Attorney-General and I recognize that we probably can't discuss the Family Relations Act, because you are appealing it.... I'm not sure. Is it before the courts at this time? If it isn't, I certainly would like to recommend that the idea of one judge with the responsibility for sitting on all family matters and that of the extension of the unified family courts are, I think, two ways of dealing with the Family Relations Act — and I would support that. For example, in the lower mainland, where we have 14 provincial court judges among New Westminster, Surrey, Burnaby and Chilliwack and only seven county court judges, by using this method you would in fact double the number of judges who could sit and hear these matters and make decisions on these matters. So I would strongly endorse an expansion of the unified family court concept, and also this business of appointing, for family matters, one judge who is able to hear and make decisions on all of these issues at one sitting.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the very major question, the point that has been raised by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds with respect to the current constitutional discussions as they affect the matter of family law in all of its areas. Let me, first of all, assure the member that the position that has been taken for the province of British Columbia by my colleague, the Minister of Inter governmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), has not been taken, and propositions put forward are not being put for ward, as a pawn in some kind of trading game for constitutional reform.

Ms. BROWN: That's reassuring.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: British Columbia is very concerned about this aspect and believes that those major elements touching upon family law should be solidly within the jurisdiction of the provinces.

I will have more to say about divorce in a moment, but let me assure you that the question of the expansion of the unified family court — matters dealing with maintenance, custody, access, property rights and so on — can, we believe, best be handled under a provincial jurisdiction and by judges who are appointed provincially, because of the difficulties that are created when you suddenly limit the access of persons who have these problems to those judges who are federally appointed — section 96 judges — and who are limited in numbers. Because the province is large, when problems occur in the Kootenays or at Kamloops and you have to wait until the superior court judge is available, then you have delays and all the consequences, all the damage that can give family situations. As I say, we think the opportunity for resolution of family relations matters in this province.... Accessibility, efficiency and cost are items we must bear in mind. Therefore we want judges to be accessible to people who have problems. We want the system to be efficient and, as the member pointed out, to have matters dealt with preferably by one judge at one time. The question of cost is something which goes without saying.

This is not to say we are suggesting that there shouldn't be concurrent jurisdiction. If as a matter of choice a person wishes to take a particular issue before a superior court judge, he has that right. We certainly don't disagree with that. But if the resolution of the problem, wherever it may lie in the province, can be more effectively dealt with in the local area by judges who are particularly qualified in family relations matters, and all the services associated with unified family court services are available there, then one should be able to go without questions being raised about constitutional difficulties.

I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not offending against the sub judice rule. The Polglase case is going on to appeal; leave has been granted by the Supreme Court of Canada. We believe that our law is properly passed within our jurisdiction, but that's altogether aside from the constitutional problem.

I wish to reiterate that we are not under any circumstances using this as a trading pawn in constitutional games; that's not our position. I think the member would be pleased to know that in all of the areas which I discussed there seems to be unanimity between the ten provinces and the federal government with regard to this aspect.

The question of divorce. Consistency is achieved under

[ Page 3933 ]

the law as it presently stands by having a federal standard established under federal statute, I would remind the member that it took 15 years to get some significant changes in that law. I would think that she and the people on whose behalf she speaks would recognize that the time it has taken to make significant social change through federal laws in matters such as this can place barriers to keeping pace with social needs. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but in fact it does take that long; and that's just one item to be borne in mind. I wish to assure the member that the position being taken by my colleague on behalf of the province is the same as hers, and we're glad to have her support.

We do not want Reno-type situations to exist in this country. That's not our position. The present position is that status to bring a divorce matter before the courts is a federal concern. The recognition of any divorce granted in this country is a matter of federal concern. The question of grounds will be a matter of concurrent position. We expect to see the national government set grounds which will be available throughout the whole nation. If there are in any one province particular reasons for a need to modify, then it would be optional with the provinces. This has been the proposition put forward by Ontario and Quebec. I'm only telling the member the present state of the propositions that are before the governments for consideration. Those are the propositions that have been put forward.

But my colleague has taken the position, as I said, that we do not want Reno-type situations to develop in this nation. We wish to have consistency; it is British Columbia's position that we will seek that in any constitutional change. It may come in a number of ways. It may come by ensuring that the federal law with regard to the recognition of divorces will deal with that matter. A province by itself may propose that a divorce be granted on certain grounds, but they may find that the federal standard with respect to recognition of a divorce will prevent those grounds from being used. We're not sure exactly what the final formula will be, but I can assure you that our position will be that we wish to see consistency across this nation. Other provinces — two in particular — hold different views. That is a matter which will have to be sorted out in the final discussions that take place between the several ministers who meet towards the end of the month. Eventually, as the discussions go on to the First Ministers' level, these matters will have to be resolved. All I can assure the member is that British Columbia's position is for consistency. As she points out, we don't want a situation where one jurisdiction in Canada seems to be a readily available place for a quick divorce, without consideration of all of the other matters which flow from the dissolution of a marriage.

In the course of her remarks the member spoke about her views with respect to what the marriage relationship is. She expressed it as being a full partnership of equals. That, of course, is the position of this government. I think our Family Relations Act makes it clear that there's the position we take. We're certainly glad to have her support.

If I haven't made myself clear with respect to British Columbia's position in these constitutional discussions, perhaps the member could raise any other concerns.

With regard to the first matter that the member raised the governance of the Law Society of British Columbia and the fact that they have awesome powers — yes, I suppose they do have awesome powers. But they also have awesome responsibilities, because the powers that lawyers themselves have in the conduct of their professional affairs and the impact they can have upon citizens are very great. Therefore, if control is required, perhaps some awesome powers are required to meet those situations.

The member mentioned judges. They're not members of the society. They're not controlled by the society. The benchers of the Law Society have always been concerned about matters of governance. Several weeks ago they convened a special meeting over a weekend in this city for the purposes of all of the benchers sitting down and intensively examining the profession, the Law Society, the way that it is used by the public, and the way in which they're discharging their role. As a consequence of that they have instructed one of their members to more fully examine some aspects of the governance of the society. I have an appointment to meet with the master treasurer and the president of the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association on September 2, here in Victoria, for the purpose of discussing with them views that they have with respect to the improvement in the matters of governance of the Law Society. At that time I propose to lay before them some concerns which I have on that subject.

You mentioned one particular aspect, and that is the inclusion of lay persons on the benches. That's a proposition which I happen to support. We have it in the governing bodies of other professional groups. As a result, the monitoring aspect of their membership on those bodies produces favourable results. It has been tried in the province of Ontario. The success there is difficult to measure. The work of the benchers is long and exacting. They spend long hours in dealing with both the governance and discipline matters that are their responsibility. But I don't think that should deter us from seeking lay persons in the community who can contribute to the governance of the Law Society. I propose to discuss that in my meeting in September with the treasurer of the Law Society.

The member mentioned one particular aspect which has been in the press during the last few days. It's a question of whether a vendor of property, who was also a lawyer, could advise the purchaser of the property on a solicitor-client relationship.

MS. BROWN: No. Can he hide the fact that he is the owner?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I appreciate that. In other words, the lawyer is advising his client on how to deal with property, which the lawyer was in fact selling.

MS. BROWN: Right. but the client didn't know.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's right. What I want to say is that that's been dealt with in the courts. The member may not have noticed, but that matter is also now before the benchers for the purposes of discipline. If you want my view on the matter, there's no question that that was improper activity in the conduct of a solicitor-client relationship.

MS. BROWN: I just want to deal with two things that the Attorney-General mentioned. I'm really pleased about that meeting he's going to have with the benchers on September 2, and I'm glad he's going to suggest that a lay person — at least one or two — be around to at least listen to the delibera-

[ Page 3934 ]

tions as they are taking place. Just having someone else there listen to how they reach their decisions would, I think, be good. I certainly recognize the responsibility that the benchers have, and I support it. I think that disciplinary bodies are important; they are doing a good job. However, I think the job they are doing would be improved if there were some other people there with a different perception, just to have some input into it.

I want to give you two quotes from the Mulgat-MacGuigan committee that I'm particularly upset about and that I probably glossed over too quickly. One is when they said: "The fact that one Canadian living in a particular province might get a divorce where another might not should not offend anyone deeply." Well, it does. That is the point I'm making — not that the provinces should have easy divorces or quick divorces, but that there will be inconsistency.

Although I recognize that it may take 15 years to change a federal law, I am not opposed to the notion that I would prefer to take 15 years to change a law if that change is going to affect everybody in exactly the same way right across the face of this country, rather than have the law change much more quickly but be unequal in terms of how it affects people; that's the thing I'm saying. Even though you're saying you're going for consistency, I'm supporting that by saying that to be sure there is consistency it should be a national code, a federal code, which is what we have now. Once you start splitting it up, consistency is in jeopardy, consistency is under attack. Even though it's like the national building code or whatever, where the federal government can put down minimum standards, there is nothing to prevent a provincial government from adding or modifying those standards in some way so the inequities once again appear. What we find ourselves doing, as people fighting for equality, is having to battle the inequities which surface in various provinces. Consistency, if you really want it, is by going after a national code.

The other quote which came out of that, particular report — the Mulgat-MacGuigan report — is the one dealing with values. I dealt at great length with that and I get really nervous about decisions based on people's own so-called ethical, cultural and social values, and believe that we should have a set of values that apply straight across this nation in terms of grounds for divorce. Again, the consistency in value is one that we can more easily safeguard and guarantee if it's a national one and if it's a federal one. My input to the government is this: think about this seriously. If you really are committed to consistency, you've got it now. You're going to jeopardize it when you start breaking it down, decentralizing it and giving. It to the various provinces. I assure you, in closing, that you certainly have my support in terms of the unified family court having jurisdiction over all family matters and being better able to deliver justice when that's the case.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, so that there is absolutely no misunderstanding of our position, we don't want Renos in this country. That's the position that has been taken by us in these discussions. We recognize that other provinces — certainly two of them — have different points of view. We will, in the presentation of our positions, make every effort to ensure that those different points of view are modified.

MR. HALL: These estimates on the Attorney-General's role are very interesting, and sometimes the non-lawyers have almost as much fun as the lawyers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: More fun.

MR. HALL: Oh, I don't know about that. Sometimes you even lapse into Latin if you're not careful.

A year ago I raised a question in the House — I thought a very serious question — with the then Attorney-General and was promised a response. I didn't get a response. Being a persistent fellow, I decided to raise it again. It has a continuing character. It's not the first time that has happened with the ex-Attorney-General, and I intend to bring that to the House's attention from time to time.

A year ago, during the course of a very unpleasant, difficult strike at Adams Laboratories Ltd. in Surrey, six strikers went to court. The Attorney-General was the Minister of Labour then and I'm sure he knows all about the dispute. He may even know something about the court appearances and the court happenings. On July 4 I asked questions about what happened following the appearance of those six employees in the court. Three of them were fined and three of them were jailed. One of those sentenced to six months in prison had previously joined the strike, had been a victim of criminal assault, had been stabbed, and had been shot at. All of that was directly related to the strike. Neither I, the union or the employee are suggesting for one second that it had anything to do with the employer. Following sentence at the court, the six people went immediately from court to jail. It was faster than when you throw three successive doubles playing Monopoly. They didn't pass a phone or anybody. They didn't do anything. Nobody gave them any advice. They were also handcuffed. One of them was a single parent and was unable to make any arrangements at all about looking after the child.

I raised all of this on July 4, 1979, in this, House. The people were kept in detention while paperwork was being done. I maintain, surely to goodness, that those kinds of facts could have been found out while paperwork was being done. I asked for a response from the then Attorney-General. No response was forthcoming, although one was promised. This is a complaint that has nothing to do with the current officeholder, nor does it have anything to do with the staff of the Attorney-General, who were working on the case as fast, I presume, as was reasonable to expect. In actual fact a letter was transmitted from the Ministry of the Attorney-General to the court services division headquarters. It was signed by an old friend of mine, if I may say that. Mr. Sheppard happens to be in the House assisting the Attorney-General today. That letter, sent in response to correspondence forwarded to him from the then Attorney-General sought to explain away the case. May I point out though that the member of the Legislative Assembly received no such response. On the morning in question three deputy sheriffs were asked to attend the courtroom where the six accused were being dealt with in the specific centre. The three deputy sheriffs were given sketchy information with respect to the nature of the case. Upon their arrival they simply understood that three persons were being committed to jail and three others were being fined, with a proviso that in default of payment of the fines they would have to serve a jail term as well. The deputy sheriffs did not understand that the three individuals who had been fined had been given time to pay their fines.

I want to repeat that to you, Mr. Chairman, if I may. The deputy sheriffs did not understand that the three individuals

[ Page 3935 ]

who had been fined had been given time to pay their fines. When a person has not been given time to pay, he is immediately taken into custody until the fine is paid by someone on his behalf. The deputy sheriffs did not understand that any time to pay had been given. Therefore they assumed that all six defendants were in custody from the moment the courts closed. It is usual for persons sentenced for a term in custody to be handcuffed during the process of moving them from the courtroom to more secure accommodation. All this has been pointed out to the deputy sheriffs and the court reporter. They acknowledged the error,

I think the word "error" to describe what happened might be satisfactory to describe a letter passing between the Attorney-General and myself, but I don't think that the word "error" is satisfactory to describe what happened to somebody who has been handcuffed on his way to jail, and not given any time to pay a fine when he did have time and to make any arrangements when they knew he had arrangements. Semantic discussion though that may be, I think the word "error" is a bad choice of words.

With respect to the delay in the paperwork, which I make reference to, Mr. Attorney-General, the letter goes on to advise:

"Had this been a criminal matter, the paperwork would have been attended to by members of the court staff. However, as this was a civil contempt matter, the judge asked the plaintiff's lawyer to prepare the necessary order and present it for signature. Consequently the preparation of the paperwork — and the length of time involved in the particular case was the responsibility of the plaintiff's lawyer."

Again, I think it was a very unfortunately happening.

The letter by Mr. Sheppard goes on — and I do appreciate the time he took to acquaint the House with the details surrounding the case in response to the correspondence sent to the then Attorney-General — to say, in the final paragraph:

"Please accept my apologies for our staff failing to understand that time to pay has been granted to the three defendants. I do not think this will occur again. I also point out that with the move of the new courthouse in the fall, security problems will be much fewer and accommodation for persons being held in custody much better than is the case presently in the Pacific Centre, and this should make the role of the deputy sheriff and the situation of the defendant much easier in future cases."

It was a very unhappy ending through a very unhappy situation, exacerbated by clinical ignorance of the case by the deputy sheriffs. Had I been a lawyer acting for those people, I would have sued somebody about that, and I think I might have been successful.

I'd like to know whether or not that could happen again. I'd like to know if apologies were sent not just to those people involving themselves in the case, like the member for Surrey and the B.C. Federation of Labour; I'd like to know if apologies went at least to three of the defendants. I think, as I said on July 4, that that kind of activity in the middle of a strike — in the middle of sensitive, difficult, violence-ridden problems in my constituency — did little to help. In fact, the strike went on, as you know, Mr. Minister, for some time, and who knows what contribution that made. It was sad case. I must confess that had I had a more fulsome answer from the then Attorney-General, I might not have raised it today. I would have done it perhaps in a different way — at least I would have had the benefit of a proper answer in the first place.

The next question. through the Chairman to the Attorney-General, is that it's been my unhappy duty from time to time to have dealt with people who have got into trouble through having run afoul of the police — people who have had their vehicles towed away, and I have had to explain to them what has happened and what the law is. I think that's happened to many of us. I don't want to deal with the whole question of municipal bylaws on towing — that's not the purpose of today's exercise. What I'm dealing with is a letter that I've had in response to some inquiries from the fire commissioner by Mr. Gordon Anderson regarding unauthorized parking in fire zones — and this is all over the province; let's take the whole province — at shopping centres, hospitals, apartment buildings, public buildings, and so on.

There have been a number of incidents whereby fire exits, fire hydrants, escape zones, etc., have been plugged by careless, stupid, selfish — use your own adjective — motorists. Some municipalities have bylaws that enable something to be done about it; some municipalities don't. My query of you is to find out if there is a fire marshal's responsibility under the Fire Marshal Act that will make sure that we are not putting into jeopardy by blocking, by preventing exit from public places, from beer parlours.... I can think of shopping centres next to beer parlours. I can think of the biggest beer parlour in Surrey, which is the Dell Hotel, right in the middle of a shopping centre with exit lanes blocked night after night after night.

Now what are you going to do with the Dell hotel? They try their best. Yellow lines are painted — no bylaw. I understand there is no bylaw. I should confirm that with the first member, but I'm pretty sure I'm right; there's no bylaw. Similarly with fire hydrants, etc., provincial standards would indicate.... Well, it indicates to me that there should be a provincial standard, and I would like your response on that problem. Now as we spread down the valley and become a more mobile and motorized community south of the river, as you build more and more bridges, we're finding that we're spending more and more time in that automobile — gas and energy problems notwithstanding.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

My last question to the Attorney-General is a question that has worried me for some time, regarding school district buses. If there is a requirement for me to wear my seatbelt and my passengers to wear a seatbelt........ I see School District 36 buses on at least three provincial highways every morning of the school year, and when they go on field trips in particular, travelling at the posted speeds; I'm wondering why we don't have a similar requirement for seatbelts in those buses. Now that is an expensive proposition, but I don't think expense is the criterion we should be looking at. We've specifically exempted from our legislation, I understand, public transportation, but I don't know why we've exempted the private transportation that is, indeed, used to convey our active school children who are moving about, sometimes, on the way to school. I'd like to get a response from you regarding any research, any statistics you've gathered, any possibilities whatsoever regarding changes — and I'm being very careful how I word this question — regarding seatbelt legislation, particularly for school buses that are travelling in the province.

[ Page 3936 ]

Those are my three queries, Mr. Minister. They are very simple, short and direct.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the member for a clear statement of his three matters. First of all, with respect to the problems affecting the law, which rose out of the Adams Laboratories strike, the matter has never come to my attention, Mr. Member. I'm not suggesting that you should have written to me again, but may I first of all ask you if you would — I don't want the names to be in Hansard — just drop me a note which will identify the file so that I can get it from my office and can answer the question as to whether apologies or regrets were extended to anybody. I would be happy to do that forthwith.

The issue, however, is one which gives us concern. This, of course, was a case of persons being imprisoned for a contempt, which is a civil matter, but I think the rules should apply equally to those situations as they do to the criminal field. Usually in criminal matters, through contract arrangements with the Attorney-General's ministry, we have organizations throughout this province who do serve the purpose of assisting people who have been sentenced and are going to be taken into custody — Elizabeth Fry, for one, comes to mind. They certainly have representatives in the major court facilities who can provide the kind of service that is so often required by people who are suddenly confronted with going into custody.

There is another practice which is perhaps, if anything, more effective, and that is on the part of the judges when, having convicted, they then advise the accused person that they will reserve to sentence in a certain number of days and the convicted person is then able to make such arrangements as he or she must make in order to take care of their other responsibilities before being taken into custody.

The question of handcuffing is a very difficult one to handle. We would like to see the sheriffs officers be able to exercise a discretion and judgment in such matters, but sometimes when they have tried to accommodate persons who, perhaps by reason of the nature of the offence, shouldn't be handcuffed, they've done so to their regret. The standard, therefore, is that when you are taken into custody for the purposes of being transported to some other place, handcuffs are employed in every case — or should be. It isn't always done. It's a very difficult decision to make as to what standards you apply, because they vary from case to case. It is a constraint which I would prefer not to apply, but for some persons who will resort to violent activity it is the only way in which some measure of protection can be given to the person who is responsible for transport.

Unauthorized parking in fire zones. Any person who interferes with any fire exit, fire equipment or fire lane must be considered to be one of the least responsible members of our society — particularly in the circumstances to which the member refers, where you have very large public establishments in which there are hundreds of people at any one time. While every care is taken to ensure that no fire does start, when one starts then it is panic. If fire exits and fire lanes are blocked, then the panic is only intensified and injury and loss of life results. The fire commissioner, under legislation which we passed earlier this session, is preparing for — and I expect to be presenting it to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in the next seven days — the adoption of the National Fire Code for this entire province. I will be discussing with the fire commissioner whether or not matters of this kind could not better be dealt with on a provincial code basis, rather than left to the vagaries of municipal bylaws. If they are on a provincial code basis, then they can be enforced by the police, the fire departments and the fire commissioner's staff. I am pleased that the member has raised that matter.

Thirdly, seatbelts. I don't want to put the member off by saying that the seatbelt legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). That's not putting you off, because that too is a matter of concern to me. I'm not sure why it is that buses are exempt, particularly school buses. We have established between that ministry and mine the Motor-Vehicle Task Force, which is looking into a whole range of matters associated with safe operation of motor-vehicles in the province. I'm not certain whether they have turned their attention to this question of seatbelts and whether the penalties for not wearing them are an effective means of ensuring that seatbelts will be worn, or whether there are problems with some of the exemptions.

I am particularly concerned in the case of school buses, where there is perhaps a tendency on the part of students to roam around on the buses and not even be in the seats. If they become involved in an accident, then the potential for serious injury is, if anything, made greater. I will raise this with the chairman of the Motor-Vehicle Task Force. I will ask him whether it is being considered, and if not why not. I will be happy to provide the member with an early report on this particular aspect. I suppose that in normal buses on streets where people are getting on and off quickly there may be some justification for not wearing seatbelts. But school buses normally travel the same route and children are on them for a particular period of time; they are not being dropped off at regular intervals except on the way home, and the wearing of seatbelts would seem to be appropriate. There is, of course, the additional problem in buses of whether you can get the shoulder-strap type of harness; you may be limited to the waist belt. That is also a problem which I am sure will have an effect upon whether or not they should continue to be exempt.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. I only want to deal with two subjects — subjects which you will readily recognize as being properly in the area covered by the Attorney-General's estimates, as they involve the law and the way it is administered in British Columbia.

My first topic is judges. I'll put it in the form of a question: who sits in judgment on judges? No one should be above the law, and I've often wondered why that tight little fraternity consisting of lawyers and former lawyers is allowed to pass judgment on its own profession when the rest of us — average citizens and politicians included — have to be judged by those who are deemed to be learned in the law. The need for a more objective forum in which the questionable conduct of certain judges can be judged is needed, and we need it soon.

My second topic is expropriation — expropriation by the Crown in the right of the province. I can't understand why we in British Columbia at this late date don't have a single act to deal with the enforced removal of private property from private hands. Ottawa does, and other provinces do; but British Columbia is still back in the Middle Ages in this respect. We have expropriation powers in 70 different statutes, many of them unfair. Ten provincial departments and agencies,600 municipal and local agencies and a host of

[ Page 3937 ]

private corporations and individuals have the power to dispossess owners of their private assets. They make a mockery of our society, one which is based, among other things, upon the right to own property in this freedom-loving country of ours.

But back, Mr. Chairman, to the question: who judges judges? Judges are not supermen or superwomen. They are ordinary mortals like ourselves. They have their weaknesses and strengths, their likes and dislikes. Most of our judges. especially those who have been on the bench for a long time, have been closeted in a tight little world of their own profession's making.

Mr. Chairman, I've learned this much in my recent brush with the law: our judicial system doesn't always administer justice in this country. It administers the law. What you and I legislate here in this chamber is the principal grist for the typical judge's mill. What the words say, or more precisely what the legal profession agree the words say, is all-important. How the public sees the issue doesn't matter in the courts. The public view, in fact, is irrelevant. It's the legal interpretation of a clause, a line or even a word in a statute that really counts. This sounds like hair-splitting, and that's often true. I should know because that's what my case, a case dealing with a minister's travel allowance, was all about.

But to get back to judges and the question of who should pass judgment on judges when judges themselves have a vested interest in protecting the good name of that august profession in which they've chosen to serve, what happens when a judge is personally involved in a hit-and-run case? What happens when a judge picks up a prostitute in broad daylight in downtown Vancouver? What happens when a judge, having been apprehended, asks the policeman: "Do you really know who I am?" What happens when a judge breaks any one of a number of laws upon which he, as a judge, is asked to pass sentence from time to time? Mr. Chairman, I know what happens now. That judge is turned over to other judges or others in the legal profession, friends or acquaintances of his, people who know their place in the legal scheme of things, what the pecking order in the courts is, what views this judge has and another judge hasn't. Sometimes it's a judge or a group of judges who pass judgment. Sometimes it's a prominent lawyer or a select list of lawyers who are asked to pass judgment. They may make the right decision, and they do in most instances. But there is obviously a matter of professional pride and always there is the question of appearances.

There's a well-known dictum in our democratic society, that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Lawyers who let judges off with little more than a tap on the wrist are undermining our legal system, perhaps unwittingly, more than they are helping. That's why I personally would like to see judges judged by laymen when they get into trouble. This is why I would like to see them tried before an ordinary jury made up of men and women chosen at large, people who would judge them in a more open and down-to-earth way. If we need a chairman or an acting magistrate to ensure that the proper procedures are followed, why not have the chief of police in the municipality in which the offence took place keep order in the court? Then justice would not only be done but, equally important, it would be seen to be done. Judges would be judged by their peers, who are in fact the people themselves. They mustn't be left in their rarefied atmosphere to protest and pontificate among themselves. Otherwise, how can you explain to the average layman why the in-group in the legal profession rarely ever suspends a judge? They get a mild admonition, of course, but if they have a drinking problem or even a credibility problem, they get six months' leave with full pay; they get a paid holiday, enough time away from the bench for them to get over the shock of having been in trouble with the law and, hopefully, long enough for the public to forget what they did in the first place.

As a politician — and you're also a politician, Mr. Chairman — I must say that I'm apprehensive about judges. Many of them don't like politicians. They don't like politicians even though they were appointed to their judgeships by politicians in the first place. They don't like us, even though many of them were members of political parties in their early years; some of them even ran for office a time or two.

When I was sentenced, Mr. Chairman, the judge made a big point of the fact that I was a politician. He said that I'd served my country well, over a number of years, and that I'd never before been in trouble with the law. But, in his eyes, the very fact that I was a politician made me a person unlike other people. My political visibility was such that I couldn't be treated like anyone else. He went so far as to say — and here I'm quoting directly from the transcript:

"Had plain 'Mr. Davis' in private employment been found to have engaged in similar conduct, he would likely have been reprimanded and warned. He may even have been discharged. It's more likely that he would not have been obliged to have suffered the indignity of a criminal trial. He has, however, resigned as a minister and has taken the honourable course of resigning as a member. He has been obliged to appear in court and bear all the publicity which his case has engendered, and both he and his family have been obliged to suffer the agonizing embarrassment and humiliation of a trial. For him and his family it is indeed unfortunate that he cannot be dealt with as plain 'Mr. Davis' — as an ordinary citizen."

Parenthetically. Mr. Chairman, I was an ordinary citizen at that time. In other words, having been a politician I received an extraordinary sentence. That's not equality before the law: it's the opposite.

To make my point, it's not the kind of treatment a judge would get at the hands of other judges. They would extol his virtues and play down his shortcomings; they would list his many years of service and certainly, by inference at least, applaud his profession. At least this is the way it looks to people like myself who, having been in the courts, have taken a real interest in the way in which judges who are in trouble with the law have been judged by those in the legal profession who are called upon to pass judgment on them. That's why I think we have to find another way in which to judge judges. That's why I'm urging the hon. Attorney-General and other members of the executive council to give some thought to the way in which these eminent gentlemen and gentlewomen are tried in our judicial system in the future.

My second topic, as I indicated earlier, is expropriation. I made the point that we should have one carefully thought out, carefully phrased and carefully administered expropriation act in British Columbia. We shouldn't have provincial laws — many of them old, some of them new: adequate and inadequate; fair and unfair — that allow government agencies to seize private property without due process and without necessarily compensating the owners of the property.

[ Page 3938 ]

Mr. J.V. Clyne, sitting as a royal commissioner, with today's chief justice of B.C. as counsel, said in 1964 that the province's expropriation laws should be consolidated and the basis of compensation changed. In 1972 Mr. Justice Fulton, chairman of the Law Reform Commission of those days, made similar recommendations. He called for the establishment of a single tribunal to arbitrate all expropriations in British Columbia. He said: "It is fundamental justice that there should be adequate procedural safeguards to protect the individual citizen from the abuse of exercise of expropriation powers. "

Many hon. members on this side of the House have spoken on this subject in recent years. I know the Attorney-General is aware of the need for this kind of legislation. Perhaps he can tell us why it has taken the government so long to get around to drafting a single bill dealing with expropriation in a modern, democratic manner and presenting it to the House.

Perhaps he can also tell us how he thinks a sensitive and fair-minded administration would deal with the difficult problem of compensation. I personally don't think that the simple market-value approach is good enough. In this case the value of land, buildings and other assets is, I contend, its value in the eyes of the owner. His or her anguish, disruption and feeling of insecurity should also be taken into account. No doubt the Crown will end up paying more for property under legislation of that kind; but it is the only way in which government — impersonal, purposeful, big government — can possibly deal with people and still maintain their confidence and respect.

We have to put the individual first in this chamber, this province and this country. One of the tangible ways in which we can indicate our intentions in this regard is to deal fairly and compassionately with those who are caught up in this process of expropriation. A new act which says it all, and says it properly and fairly, is badly needed in British Columbia. The sooner it is drafted and passed in this chamber the better.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, with leave of the committee might I rise to make a brief introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure for a member for Vancouver South to be able to introduce to members a person from Prince George. As you know, Mr. Chairman, by virtue of being in the chair today, you are unable to make the introduction. I know that, having been a past chairman of the Prince George school board, you would want to do that. However, on your behalf might I introduce and ask members to welcome a member of the Prince George school board, a school trustee, Mr. Gordon Ingalls, and his family.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I first want to make a few remarks concerning the remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). I followed that case, as I'm sure we all did in the province of British Columbia, very carefully. I didn't have any more facts than they showed me in the news, but I was convinced — and I still am — that that member was ill-served by the judicial system of British Columbia. I am convinced from what I know of the case that the conduct was nothing more than one could expect in any role, whether in the private or public sector. The case seemed to come down to a very narrow definition of the word "benefit. " So I want to say that I agree with those remarks.

But I think that member was also ill-served by the Premier of the province of British Columbia. To be fair, I don't think the member can give the back of his hand to the lawyers and judges without mentioning a very abrupt decision by the Premier of this province, which I think placed that member is an unnecessarily difficult position. The matter could have been handled much differently than it was. Since we're throwing brick bats around, we'd better throw some at the government.

I want to say a few words about something that has been dealt with very extensively here — the various inquiries. I won't deal with them in any detail. Standards of conduct and the standards we apply to the law in a democracy are to be standards that we all observe equally. But there are some people who have a special duty: those who administer the law, those who judge the law and those who make the law. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that duty has not been consistently carried out by this Attorney-General — the kind of example that must be set for the people of the province. Something less than a perfect standard has been applied. Let me just very briefly explain why.

A year ago I raised on the floor of this House the problems in connection with allegations made by a judge in the course of his judgment and in the course of his handling a matter under the Family Relations Act. At that time, the former Attorney-General quite appropriately decided to call upon Mr. Justice Seaton to do a complete inquiry into that matter. Now the reason Mr. Justice Seaton was called in on that particular case was that it would clearly be inappropriate for a member of the Attorney-General's staff to conduct an inquiry, since there was such an inherent conflict of duty and interest in that case. Quite appropriately, the Attorney-General's predecessor called upon a judge of the supreme court. I might say, you'll notice that following that judgment it seemed to have been universally accepted. There didn't seem to be a great deal of fuss created on the floor of this House or in the public domain in the exchange of ideas, surrounding that matter. Of course, Mr. Chairman, the reason is that he didn't have this nagging suspicion that there was a conflict of duty and interest when Mr. Justice Seaton did his report.

Well, Mr. Chairman, when you examine the other matters that have come before this House as to whether there is a conflict of duty and interest, every time something in the political realm occurs, there is the clear matter of a conflict of duty and interest — in the matter of the campaign donations, in the matter of the Eckardt report, and in the matters raised by the CBC program, which I understand now is sub judice. I won't make an extensive comment about it. The Attorney General had within his grasp the means to solve all of these problems by simply appointing a judge of the supreme court to do a proper and open inquiry. Without criticizing any of the reports that have been filed, one can't escape a nagging suspicion that there is more to the story back there some where. All the cards haven't been put on the table. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General, who has a special responsibility to the people of British Columbia as their chief law enforcement officer, who quite properly says that he's more than just a member of the cabinet, and as the first law officer of the Crown, has a special duty to set an example to the entire province in those kinds of matters. I submit, Mr.

[ Page 3939 ]

Chairman, that that has not been the case. I'm sorry to say that, because I have great respect for the Attorney-General.

Where a matter that is clearly in the political domain comes about, there is a special responsibility that the standard be a standard that every British Columbian can be proud of. That was not the case, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to ask the Attorney-General a couple of questions surrounding his responsibility under the Coroners Act. My information is that last year ten of the 120 coroners in the province of British Columbia resigned. My information is that a telegram was sent to every coroner in the province of British Columbia, which stated that if he did not attend a seminar he would have to resign. Now that's a paraphrase, because I don't have a copy of the telegram that went out.

I ask you, Mr. Attorney-General, to place yourself in the position of a coroner, with some pride in his function, some confidence in his'ability, and a feeling that he has made a significant contribution in the province. To treat coroners in this province in that way, I suggest, is to demean the office. A letter went out to every coroner in regard to that same conference, saying they must attend or be classified as a non-qualified coroner. The telegram came out subsequently saying attend or resign. That, in itself, might not be bad, but there are a number of other matters that should be looked at, Mr. Attorney-General.

The morale within that particular division that the Attorney-General has responsibility for, I suggest, is not high enough or may be low. It could be a result of not treating these people with the kind of professional respect that they deserve. That's only one indication, Mr. Attorney-General, on that subject. You'll recall the pathologists had a fee dispute in regard to their operations. The Attorney-General was threatened with them simply not bothering to work for the department unless a certain fee was made. It seemed to me again that that seemed to be a rather high-handed approach to take. They didn't have to have this confrontation. I hope the Attorney-General comments about that situation and perhaps he will be able to tell us the present situation with regard to the pathologists.

The third area I wanted to ask the Attorney-General about is also with respect to morale in the coroner's office. My understanding is that the coroner's staff has in fact filed a letter of complaint with the Attorney-General asking for an inquiry into these problems. I'm hopeful that the Attorney-General might be able to rise in his place and tell us what progress there has been in that matter.

Basically it is a question of morale within the ministry. I would like the Attorney-General to try to clarify those areas: the question of the morale of the coroners themselves; the question of the attendance at that particular seminar; the question of the present status of the pathologists; and the present state of the inquiry with regard to the employees in the coroner's office.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I think if they tried a Gallup poll in the province of British Columbia now, surrounding the view the people have of this government.... There has been a great deal of attention paid to the dirty tricks, but I keep getting this uncomfortable feeling from people in my constituency that they are becoming more and more cynical of the administration of justice. I don't think that is a correct attitude to take. I think a good deal of that will always be out there. I think the administration of justice through the courts in this province has been fairly good, but right now the public perception of it is at a low ebb. There are a number of reasons for that, not all of them connected with the Attorney-General.

Certainly one of the reasons for this widespread cynicism around the justice system has to be the question of how the Attorney-General has handled problems of the government, how he has gone about providing reports, and why he has failed to bring in independent help in the majority of these cases to give a full, open and public inquiry with the material and evidence available for scrutiny.

MR. COCKE: Just to enlarge a little bit on the comments of the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we do have a serious problem, as I see it, in the coroners office and in the coroners service in the province. As the Attorney-General probably knows, I have a fairly wide acquaintanceship in the medical field. It strikes me wherever I go that medical doctors — not just pathologists, but medical doctors generally — are talking about the morale in the coroners service, about the authoritarian way the coroners service is being run, and are indicating that the present coroner did not come with all that much experience and immediately took over the service and ran roughshod over a lot of people.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Legislature, it doesn't give me a great deal of comfort to discuss an employee of a department or of the government. I would prefer to direct the whole question to the minister who should take responsibility.

I think the problem is that the ministry didn't recognize early enough that they had a problem. When I asked the minister about the pathology problem — and that was that the pathologists were threatening to withdraw their services — the minister indicated that he had knowledge of that situation, I don't know how much knowledge he has of past events in that service, but I am suggesting that as far and wide as you want to go in the province, you're going to hear criticism of the way the coroners service is now being run.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that in view of the very large increase in budget for that service we should be expecting something better than a service that is now, according to some of the people that I talk to, in general chaos. Doctors who have been coroners quit. Others who have had a long period of experience have quit, by virtue of the fact that the demands made on them, in their eyes, are demands that are not really worthy of their attention, let alone their acquiescence. It strikes me that in a service like this, we're so tremendously dependent upon, say, a contracting-out situation. For the most part, coroners are not full-time people. When we're dependent upon the service of professionals who have high standards, we demand that those professionals keep up their standards. But, generally speaking, we don't demand that those professionals attend what they perceive to be Mickey Mouse conferences, with agendas that don't really require the response that the coroners service demands; then we see a situation in jeopardy.

I suggest that this department has been overlooked by the ministry. I suggest that the ministry has been far too busy with inquiries into other areas to have really given this the kind of attention it requires. I know there must be some very serious thoughts in terms of where we're going, particularly when there is such a massive response across the province to some of the things that have occurred.

It strikes me that there was some talk the other day that I heard — that the coroners service indicated that, well, they

[ Page 3940 ]

could quite nicely do without pathology. It's absolutely impossible — utterly impossible. The services of a pathologist, particularly to a coroners service that is now indicating that they're directing themselves to forensic work....

You can't make that kind of statement.

Another area in which I have found, to some extent, some disquiet is in the police force. I'm talking generally in terms of the police forces across the province. What they're saying, Mr. Chairman — sometimes under their breath and sometimes out loud, depending on where they are — is that their service that they normally provide is being usurped. The coroners service now is trying to duplicate the services of the police force. No wonder the budget goes up under those circumstances. The budget has increased significantly in this service. I suggest that under those circumstances, it's about time we heard from the Attorney-General with respect to his feelings about the way things are going, and also hear from the Attorney-General what direction he may be giving in the immediate future for a coroners service that is not going to be strife-ridden, as I suggest and as I charge that service is at the present time. Now I don't think there is too much point in going into this in any greater depth, because I'm quite sure that there are those around the Attorney-General — if he hasn't already got all the information, and I suspect he has — who can quickly fill him in on the complaints. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there must be a mass of correspondence in that ministry if just my discussions that I've had as recently as a trip up to the North Island to speak to the doctors Lip there.... It was a general topic of discussion. That isn't the only area in the province where I've heard these complaints. Generally speaking, Mr. Chairman, we've got problems. I think that those problems are totally uncalled for in that particular service.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to the matters raised by the last two members, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), with regard to the coroner. Dr. McArthur was appointed chief coroner under the new legislation in April 1979, and the members will realize that at that time there was no provincial service in the true sense. Therefore Dr. McArthur was given a very major responsibility to build a service province-wide, so that there would be consistently high standards with regard to the responsibilities of coroners throughout this province. We also hoped that we would achieve as quickly as possible some of the standards that have been established for coroners services in other provinces. I might say that this province falls far behind other provinces in the level of service that is provided.

As a consequence of some of these changes, there has been resistance on the part of those who had functioned over the years under the old system. I am not in any way suggesting that their concerns were not valid. It was a matter of who was going to direct the coroners service. It may even be that in the course of the development of the service there has been some insensitivity in the haste to bring about change.

I have had a recent meeting with the chief coroner. I am aware of the resignations there have been and the circumstances surrounding those resignations. I am aware of the concerns about attendance at seminars. I am aware that staff members have taken grievance proceedings through their unions. I am not satisfied, as difficult as the job of the development of the coroners service may be, that it should be done in such a way as to produce issues of this kind. As a consequence, I will be meeting again with the chief coroner in about ten days, at which time he and I and officials of the ministry will discuss this whole range of issues that have been raised by people in the service, and we will map out a course of action which will be taken to ensure that those issues are satisfactorily resolved to those people who see them as issues and that they don't recur. What that direction may be will depend in large measure upon the discussions that take place and the ideas that the coroner may have with respect to some change in direction.

The members have raised the question of a pathologist. The immediate issue with regard to pathologists has been resolved, as the members know. The same day as the withdrawal of their services became effective, the Deputy Attorney-General and I interceded and resolved that immediate issue, which was the question of the payment of fees. But there are some other issues which flow from those discussions and a series of meetings have been arranged in the month of September with officials of the ministry and the pathologists, in which the coroner will be involved, to ensure that all of the outstanding concerns that the pathologists have are resolved and we don't have a recurrence of some unfortunate differences of opinion.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.