[ Page 3941 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Vogel report on Eckhart commission. Mr. Lauk –– 3941

Mr. Macdonald –– 3942

Expansion of Roberts Bank port. Mr. Segarty –– 3942

Eckardt commission report. Mr. Lauk –– 3943

Uranium mining moratorium, Mr. D'Arcy –– 3943

B.C. Tel service. Hon. Mr. McGeer replies –– 3944

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3945

Mr. Lea

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Hyndman

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Levi

Mr. King

Mr. Macdonald

Division on the motion that vote 21 be reduced by the sum of S I –– 3964

THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today some cousins from Prince George, Dan and Elsa Biech, with their son Christopher and daughter Theresa, and I ask the House to join me in welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: It gives me great pleasure to recognize that in your gallery today we've got a distinguished returning Victorian, one who made good, Prof. Stewart Smith, who is one of North America's best-known physicists, now at Princeton University. He is back here for a summer vacation with his wife Norma, and children Peter and Ian. I hope the members will bid them welcome and realize that there are some British Columbians who've made good.

MR. SKELLY: I ask the House to join me in welcoming three guests from Port Alberni: Mr. Gerry Koning, Mrs. Pearl Koning, and Fred Koning.

MR. REE: I have a great deal of pleasure today in introducing a person to this House for the first time. I am very pleased to have my wife Cheri in the House; it's her first visit to the Legislature, and she's in the centre front of the Speaker's gallery. I would ask this House to welcome her today.

MR. KING: Today in the gallery, visiting Victoria from the city of Calgary, are my nephew and niece, Jeff and Penny Lennard. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to them. Peter Lougheed agreed to give them holidays.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, also visiting with us today is a very long-time and good friend of mine, Mr. Chuck Dixon. He's in the gallery with his two lovely daughters, Pamela and Dawn. I would ask the House to bid them a very special welcome this afternoon.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the question period be delayed for 15 minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, to seek the floor to make a motion one first must have leave. Therefore the motion cannot be entertained without the member first receiving leave to make a motion.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I challenge that ruling. That doesn't make any sense at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you may challenge the ruling, but the remarks made by the member will be withdrawn immediately.

MR. LAUK: I can question the sense or the logic of the Speaker's decision. I don't mean any personal effrontery, Mr. Speaker. My view is that you said you have to have leave to seek the floor. Once you've been recognized by the Speaker you've got the floor, so I don't need leave to seek the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is familiar with the rules of the House. The challenge has been made of the Speaker's ruling. The question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS –– 28

NAYS — 24

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

Oral Questions

VOGEL REPORT ON ECKARDT COMMISSION

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General confirm that Dale Mearns, Social Credit campaign worker, was the first person to be hired by Eckardt to assist him in his commission and that she worked in the Vancouver area during the election campaigns in 1969, 1972 and 1975 for the Social Credit candidates.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm any one of the four questions.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General undertake to obtain that information and provide it to the Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker. Whether Miss Mearns was involved in any election campaign is a matter which doesn't touch upon my administrative responsibilities.

MR. LAUK: Did the investigation conducted by Mr. Prelypchan establish whether Dale Mearns met with the Queen's Printer at any time to discuss the printing of the Eckardt report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice and bring the answer back to the member.

[ Page 3942 ]

MR. LAUK: Is the Attorney-General telling the House that he hasn't read the evidence that's supposedly supporting the Vogel investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the only person associated with the work of the commission who communicated with the Queen's Printer was a Mrs. Robbins. If you ask me about somebody else, I'll be happy to inquire.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General has stated that all members of the commission's staff were interviewed by Prelypchan. Is the minister prepared to table in the House Miss Mearns' account of the "finger" episode?

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

MR. LAUK: If the Attorney-General is not prepared to table her whole account, I wonder if he would be prepared to share with the House what Dale Mearns, Social Credit campaign worker, says occurred with respect to the instructions she gave to the Queen's Printer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that will have to follow upon my inquiry as to whether there were any communications between Miss Mearns and the Queen's Printer.

MR. LAUK: If it is determined that there was such a communication, will the Attorney-General reveal to the House that portion of evidence?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if Miss Mearns had such communications and it is contained in the reports, I'll consider the matter at that time.

MR. LAUK: Did the investigation establish just what role Mearns played in the work of the Eckardt commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that she held a senior office position at the office of the commission in Vancouver.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister confirm our information that Mearns signed all expenditure authorizations, in addition to her office duties?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General obtain that information and provide it to the Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Did the investigation establish whether the hon. first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in any way suggested that Miss Mearns contact Mr. Eckardt when he was appointed commissioner. In other words, was there an investigation about how Miss Mearns was appointed or hired by Mr. Eckardt, and did the hon. first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain have an involvement in that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the investigation didn't extend into those areas.

MR. LAUK: Would the Attorney-General now agree that this matter should be publicly canvassed through the Inquiry Act, and has the minister decided to do so?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to both questions is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, I just want to ask the Attorney-General whether he would consider it proper that someone in the position of Mr. Eckardt, appointed a sole commissioner in terms of election boundaries, should appoint an active partisan member of one of the political parties involved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the function of question period is to ask those urgent questions touching upon my administrative responsibilities, not for me to determine what might be proper in any particular case as determined by the member.

MR. LAUK: It was yesterday that the Attorney-General indicated that he would have acted quickly not only if criminal charges became apparent but if improprieties had occurred. I would ask the Attorney-General again: is this a situation that he would call improper or involving an impropriety?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not in the sense that it would result in an inquiry. The persons employed by the commissioner were, I assume, people whom he considered to be qualified to do the particular task that would be assigned to them.

EXPANSION OF ROBERTS BANK PORT

MR. SEGARTY: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of positive industrial development going on in southeastern British Columbia, but all of this lies in jeopardy if the Roberts Bank superport is not expanded immediately to accommodate future coal markets. Ottawa's representative to British Columbia, Senator Ray Perrault, issued a statement today saying that the province had put some new road-blocks in the way. I wonder if the minister could fill us in on what is happening with the expansion plans.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the question of the hon. member for Kootenay, I know that the hon. member and the House are very much aware that I have worked ceaselessly and tirelessly during the last four years in order to sell additional quantities of coal from the great province of British Columbia. I want to inform the House and all the great citizens of British Columbia that indeed I am very anxious to see the development of Roberts Bank proceed.

Just last Thursday, when the Hon. Jean-Luc Pépin was here, we signed a great agreement on Duke Point. We discussed at length the development of Roberts Bank, and I told the minister at that time: "My friend, this is a big thick legal document. If you find that the legal people in Ottawa have some difficulty, with the wording, you get on the phone and phone me. I'm sure that we can immediately resolve the problem, because I've had my colleague the Attorney-General work with me on this." I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the province of British Columbia, in seeing that that great Roberts Bank expansion goes ahead so that we can

[ Page 3943 ]

sell coal to the benefit of all Canadians and bring in those offshore dollars and help our trade, wanted to protect the interests of the producers, not only those in southeast British Columbia but all the future producers, when we ship those great commodities from a growing economy in western Canada. So we have built in a few safeguards, but nothing that would preclude the federal government from proceeding.

To show that we put our money where our mouth is, in the last paragraph of this letter which I sent to Mr. Pépin I have said: "In order to ensure that time is not lost, British Columbia is again prepared to guarantee all costs reasonably incurred by the National Harbours Board, relating to the expansion over the next few weeks or months, until the legal agreement and all the legal terminology can be worked out, finalized and signed." So I've told Ottawa: "Go ahead with the great expansion of Roberts Bank so that those coal companies can ship out their coal, and the province of British Columbia will reimburse you for your expenses, if there is no such thing as an agreement being signed." I want to assure the member from that area, who is greatly interested in his constituents down there, that Roberts Bank will proceed. There are no difficulties, and we should stop negotiating through the press. All I'd appreciate is a phone call from the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the problems will be solved.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, without being critical of the Chair, the Chair permitted the minister to proceed, in direct contravention of the rules, to make speeches and not to be responsive to the question. That has permitted an intrusion into the time allotted to question period, and, if nothing else, the question period should be extended in order to cover the points taken up by....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, in keeping with the traditions of the House we will deal with the question of the point of order at the conclusion of question period, without taking any further time at this particular moment from question period.

ECKARDT COMMISSION REPORT

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Yesterday, in answer to my question, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) stated that members of the Queen's Printer staff were interviewed, and it was disclosed in the course of that interview that the Queen's Printer did not keep work logs. On January 17, 1980, it was reported that the Queen's Printer maintained computerized information sheets that act in the same way that logs do and provide details of the number of print impressions on every job that they do. I'm informed by the civil service that those are available. Can you clarify for the House and the Attorney-General Just what records were kept by the Queen's Printer of the work they did on the Eckardt report?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I think that the suggestion he makes that logs are kept is incorrect, both as evidenced by the report which I find the Deputy Attorney-General has made, and other information. I understand there to be computer runs, which I believe are strictly an indication of the time and place and amount of copies which are made, but not logs or further information regarding the reports which are made or imprinting which is done.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: the information that I have — and perhaps the minister can clarify this — is that they maintain computerized information sheets that provide details of the number of print impressions for every job that they do. From those one can determine the time, the number of copies and the nature of that which is being printed. Can the minister clarify that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: According to my information, that information would not indicate the nature or detail of what the printing was that took place.

URANIUM MINING MORATORIUM

MR. D'ARCY: To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Back on February 27 of this year, order-in-council 44280 was passed which orders that the commissioners appointed by order 170179 "shall report their findings and recommendations to date to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council on or before the 31st day of May 1980." It goes on to indicate the methods by which they shall report and rescinds certain other orders-in-council.

My question to the minister is: since, under this order, there is absolutely no mention of a moratorium on uranium mining and exploration, what is the legal basis for the moratorium on uranium mining and exploration announced on February 27 by the Premier of the province of B.C.?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm a bit at a loss to understand the urgency of this question from last May. But the legal procedures in which we established the moratorium have been partially put in place by further orders-in-council which were passed following that order-in-council which the member mentions. There is also at the present time an amendment on the order paper which we'll have the opportunity to debate, which sets the parameters along with the regulations for the uranium moratorium.

I don't understand, first of all, whether or not the question is in order, especially since there are some proceedings which will be debated in this House, presumably within the next few days.

MR. HOWARD: On the point of order I raised earlier, I want to reiterate it to say that what occurred during question period, I submit, was an answer — basically a non-answer — given by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) that was specifically designed to take up the time of the question period to prevent a full course of examination of questions of the minister. The minister was obviously not being responsive to the question in any event and I think the Chair should have intervened and brought the minister to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As hon. members are well aware, if the rules governing question period were strictly enforced in all cases there would be very few, if any, questions that would be in order during question period. We only have to refer to the last question during question period asked by the opposition. If the matter of urgency were applied to that

[ Page 3944 ]

question, it would have been ruled out of order. Secondly, the Chair had to take into account that we are currently in the estimates of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and further opportunity will be provided on those questions which were being asked.

Nonetheless, the point raised by the member for Skeena has some validity. Again I must stress that when members are answering questions they must be brief as well. At the same time, hon. members, I would point out that the Chair has allowed great latitude in preamble to questions as well as answers. I think in this case the judgment of the Chair has been adequately demonstrated.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in part of your explanation just now you referred to the fact that in the judgment of the Chair the estimates of the Attorney-General were to be resumed shortly and that would provide an opportunity to canvass certain questions. That's a presumption on the part of the Chair that the questions which were going to be asked by members of the opposition related to the Attorney-General's office. They probably did not, and it's a presumption on the part of the Chair to take that course.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a very appropriate observation, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with respect, the Chair must take into cognizance when thinking over this particular situation that the government sets a precedent — a put-up job, as we just saw, where minutes are taken out of question period. This therefore gives the government an opportunity in a very short question period, such as we have in this jurisdiction, to muzzle the opposition and stonewall on questions that they don't wish to have put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest very strongly that it's an abuse of question period. I know it's a little unsettling for them, but while this was going on I noted that there was great glee over there in cabinet. There were chuckles and they thought it was a very, very funny incident. It is not funny at all; it's an abuse of question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the same point of order, I must point out that in the approximate six months that come to the immediate recollection of the Chair, only on four days of those six months have government members asked questions in question period. I would ask members to give that equal consideration.

MR. NICOLSON: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the opposition does not deny the right of government members to ask questions. We're all hon. members in this House. I think it was the answer that was taken exception to. I draw your attention to the comments by Mr. Speaker Smith on February 28, 1976, I think, in which he drew our attention to Sir Erskine May's sixteenth edition, page 363, and said: "An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to ministers of the Crown." I submit that if we are to make light of question period or to make a mockery of it, it isn't a matter of whether the opposition or government gain or lose. The whole system loses. I'm sure for that reason, Mr. Speaker, you will in future keep Mr. Speaker Smith's ruling in mind.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I've been trying for some time to get the floor to answer a question. It's been difficult to do.

MR. HOWARD: It's the first time you've gotten up in weeks.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, sometimes the opposition loves to ask the questions and they're never as interested in the answers. That's part of the problem and why we get so little business done.

B.C. TEL SERVICE

On July 15 the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) asked me if I knew the danger and catastrophe that would happen to our emergency service if B.C. Telephone Co. were to switch to the new TSPS system, which is widely used throughout North America. I undertook to gain some information on that subject for him.

I'm informed that approximately two or three calls per day per centre are received on an allegedly emergency basis, but only about 10 percent of those represent real emergencies. The information is that the introduction of the TSPS system will enhance the capability of operators to hold and identify the addresses from emergency calls, when the caller is unable to provide the address, under the automatic number identification system. Those areas that do not have this automatic number identification system will be in the same position after TSPS is introduced as before. But by the end of 1981 approximately 83 percent of B.C. Telephone lines will be served with the new ANI system, which will enable the TSPS operator to view on a screen the number from which a call is made, immediately the lines are connected. By reverse microfiche the operator will then be able to identify the address of the caller, virtually within seconds.

Now, Mr. Speaker — if I could have the attention of the opposition for just a moment, since they wish this information — under no conditions will we be worse off anywhere in British Columbia as a result of introducing this system, which is widely utilized in North America. By the end of 1981 the vast majority of lines in British Columbia will be served by a vastly superior system. So I can find no confirmation of the assertions from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Indeed, the information seems to imply quite the reverse of what he suggested to the House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under our rules.... By the way, that information I would....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: The tabling of documents. The information from which the minister read extensively is, I suspect, from B.C. Telephone Co. — their point of view only, unconfirmed by the government. I wonder if he'd table that document, to rest my fears.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, once more the member is entirely wrong. This is not information that is written out in some report by B.C. Telephone Co.; this is information from the Ministry of Communications. I did

[ Page 3945 ]

bring some typed notes in here, Mr. Speaker, so that I would be certain, in the official record of Hansard, not to give any wrong impressions to the House as were given by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew- and now more recently by the first member for Vancouver Centre. It's the same problem, Mr. Speaker: they like to ask a question and are extremely disappointed by the answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew rises...?

MR. MITCHELL: The other part of the question was: what study has been made on the 911...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On what point does the hon. member seek the floor?

MR. MITCHELL: The point of order on the tabling of documents. Also, the rest of that question was: what studies have been made on the introduction of the 911 phone number for emergencies?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we can rise on a point of order; we cannot engage in a debate. We must quote a point of order and then stick to that point of order; we cannot at that point go into further debate.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, the minister answered part of the question on emergency services. Part of the question was: what studies have been made on the 911 phone number for emergency services?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I was answering the question as it was recorded in Hansard on July 15, 1980. Now if the member would care to check what he asked at that time, I can provide him with answers. If this is a new question, Mr. Speaker, then of course I can take that new question as notice.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we appear to be engaging in some cross-debate, which is totally out of order at this point.

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.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise with the Attorney-General the subject of the Port Simpson cannery. The Attorney-General is the minister of the Crown responsible for the cannery. I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that I have talked privately with the Attorney-General about this matter, and I feel that the Attorney-General was honest and forthcoming with me.

I'm going to make a not unusual request, but the circumstances of the request might be a bit unusual. The native Indian villages situated in my riding, along with one or two other villages not within my riding but still involved in the origination of the Port Simpson cooperative — each and every one has asked me if I would not push in this House for a public inquiry under the Inquiry Act. The United Native Nations at their convention by resolution have also asked that a public inquiry be held into the operations of the Port Simpson cannery.

In making this request on behalf of the Indian people in my riding and other Indian people throughout the province, I do not suggest that there is any wrongdoing on behalf of government — either by this government or the preceding one. What I am saying, though, is that within the Indian community there is great distrust of the actions the government has taken — both our government and the present government — in the circumstances surrounding the Port Simpson cannery. There are also questions being asked in the Indian community about the administration of that cannery by the very people from the Indian community who ran it.

It seems to me that this Legislature and this government would be doing the Indian community a great service by opening the information gates into government involvement in the running of the Port Simpson cannery. I ask for this so that the air can be cleared. not to bring forth any of what I suspect would be shortcomings on behalf of the Indian people themselves in running the cannery, or by this or the previous government. Every week for months I have had letters and phone calls from Indian people asking me to try to find out exactly what is going on in the Port Simpson cannery. It isn't because the minister hasn't been forthcoming with me that I cannot understand it and therefore can't go back to those people and say: "Here's a clear-cut indication of the course of events that have happened since the cannery came into existence." For instance, I am asked why the members of that cooperative can't meet as a cooperative. They've been informed that they can't — at least some of them have been informed that they can't, or so they tell me.

It seems to me that the time has come that all of the dealings in that cannery should become full public information so that the people who have paid the bills, the taxpayers of this province, can see that government has handled itself properly, and so that the Indian people themselves, who have been and are involved in that cannery...so that that information and the manner in which they have run that cannery can also become full public knowledge. As I said at the beginning, I'm not saying that anything has gone wrong or is wrong. It's a rather unusual request for a public inquiry, but I think justice and democracy would be served, and I think that the interests of a very large minority group in this province, our first citizens, would indeed be served.

When many of them asked me to bring this to the floor of the Legislature, I said: "You realize that if the government accedes to this request, it is a case of let the chips fall where they may." I understand that from my point of view as a New Democratic Party member and from our involvement in the Port Simpson cannery. I don't feel we have anything to hide from those years or anything to be ashamed I of. I don't believe the present government has anything to hide or to be ashamed of. But I think the rumours surrounding the Port Simpson cannery are causing dissension and causing one faction to go against another within the Indian community itself. I believe the way to stop it is to lay it on the table. I

[ Page 3946 ]

think the cost of doing that would be insignificant compared to the good that could come out of it.

It's not my intention in asking for this to prove wrongdoing by anyone, but only to make sure — as has been said in this House before on other issues, only I'll phrase it in a different way — that democracy is not only being done, but being seen to be done. I think it's important. Over the years I have had private chats with the minister a number of times. I know that he shares my concern not only for the tax dollars that have been spent in there and whether they've been spent properly by two different governments, but that this project work. I know it's the minister's concern that it work. It's my concern that it work.

But it isn't enough that the minister be satisfied. It isn't enough that I be satisfied. It isn't enough that the people who are involved in the everyday operations of the cannery be satisfied. The Indian people as a whole should be satisfied that they have full knowledge of the workings of the Port Simpson cannery. All four parties that were in this Legislature at the time — the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Social Crediters and the NDP — all voted for this. We voted for it because we thought it was time that we, as a Legislature, involved ourselves in not handing out things to Indian people, but at least giving them an opportunity to work for themselves and to make decisions for themselves. I think we all looked at it as a social experiment. I think to a great degree it's worked.

What I would like today is to have the minister, as much as possible, brief the Legislature and therefore the people of the province. What's happening with the cannery today? What is its status? Who is running it? How are things going? What are the hopes and plans for the future? I would ask that the minister give serious consideration to my request for a public inquiry, so that everyone, not just those involved, knows what the Port Simpson cannery has been all about for these last few years.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The matter raised by the member for Prince Rupert is an important one. I'm pleased to say that he and I share precisely the same concerns and the same point of view with respect to the operations of this cannery. It would be easy to look back to the days prior to the time that I had had any responsibility for this matter and criticize actions that were taken by persons charged with the management of the cannery, and the situation which existed in the spring of 1976 when it appeared that the continued operation of the cannery was likely to be impossible without significant fund's being made available for that purpose.

It would be equally possible, Mr. Chairman, to examine a range of management decisions which have been made since 1976 and for some people to criticize those decisions. But I think the member and I are together on this point, that that exercise, while some people might find it to their particular advantage to point the finger of blame at one person or another or one group or another, would ignore what must be the long-range consideration of what I believe is proving to be a successful experiment in social and economic development opportunity for the native Indian fishermen and for native Indian shore workers in the Port Simpson area.

The member is correct. Over the years, prior to 1976, and certainly since 1976, for a variety of reasons there has grown an unacceptable measure of mistrust of people who have attempted — to the best of their abilities — to ensure that this cannery operation is a success. I think that it is important for the future of the cannery first of all to ensure that that mistrust is answered, if it can be; but more importantly, that the attitudes which are basic to the mistrust are changed, so that they stop interfering with the proper administration of that cannery operation.

The cannery, in all the coast, is probably one of the best canneries we've got. There are others which are larger; there are others which are much better managed. But for its size, and for the people at Port Simpson and the fishermen who use that facility, it really is a modern and efficient operation.

It has suffered throughout its history from management problems. It has suffered from lack of support among people who should support the cannery operation. Again, I don't criticize those fishermen who joined the cooperative in its early days but subsequently decided not to support the cooperative operation and in their own private interests went to fish where it would do them the most good. But I think that if we can lower the level of mistrust, or eradicate it altogether, we can bring the numbers of fishermen who will support the cannery on a consistent basis to the level that is required to make it an efficient operation to the benefit of the fishermen and, most assuredly, to the benefit of the shore workers, who, I suppose, are the ones who are most dependent on that operation.

As the fishing industry has been over the past number of years, it is always possible for fishermen to engage in their activities to their financial benefit, because people who are seeking the fish resource from fishermen are large in number. There's been a ready market for the fish that are caught. The shore workers, on the other hand, those who are at Port Simpson — and they are largely members of the Port Simpson band — depend upon the operation of that particular facility. If that cannery were to shut down, there would be a few of them, perhaps, who would go elsewhere and find employment, but the measure of economic stability that that cannery can provide to the Port Simpson community and to some neighbouring Indian areas would be lost. I think that would be a tragedy.

The member and I spoke several weeks ago about the cannery and what was going to happen. I can tell the member now that the cannery has been functioning. The season has been somewhat difficult for the fishery on the coast. There has been some significant adjustment which has to be made because of the availability of fish. Some custom canning is being done. I am advised that the cannery is operating as near to profitability as possible. The final results of that will have to await the end of the current salmon season.

With respect to the cooperative itself, there has been a large measure of misunderstanding among the members of that cooperative — or those few members who are prepared to support it — and there haven't been the meetings. But that's their responsibility to call. It's quite separate and apart from the way in which the cannery functions. Perhaps because the government involved itself in a major way in providing some management assistance, there was the feeling that continued functioning of the cooperative organization was no longer required. I think that's unfortunate.

There have been others who've been interested in forming their own cooperative and involving themselves in the operation of the cannery under some arrangement or other, and that is always a factor which can be considered. But it can't be considered separate and apart from the existing co-op.

[ Page 3947 ]

In the course of the past few years it has been difficult to find qualified cannery managers, marketing managers — which are absolutely essential if that cannery is to function independently of any outside assistance. But I believe that in the past few months, with some of the changes that have taken place in the fishing industry throughout the whole of British Columbia, highly qualified people are now available to this cannery operation, who are prepared to devote their time to the work of cannery management.

The member has asked for a public inquiry. That may be required; that may be the only way out of the situation. I would be concerned, however, that it might not be the way out. It might be seen as another attempt on the part of government to re-examine this operation, to seek out the problems, and to identify where blame might lie without addressing the problem that the member and I really recognize. How do we convince the Indian people, the Indian fishermen, and the Indian shore workers that they can make that operation go? It is theirs. How can we demonstrate to them that by joining together in full support of the canner-y operation they can, not in the first or second year but certainly over the long-range, secure for themselves a stable role in the fishing industry of this province? Fishing is traditional for the Indian people. Other native cannery operations do function on the coast. They have their problems, but they do function. I would hope that the Port Simpson cannery could be, for the north in particular, a facility equal to that which is available to the Indians in the south and middle-south portion of the coast. Indeed, in the long range, by having two functioning operations such as this, there should be the possibility of joint arrangement whereby the entire coast can be available to these two Indian economic enterprises. It won't be easy, but I think it can be achieved.

Without rejecting the member's suggestion that a public inquiry might be the way to handle it, I will make this commitment to the member. Following the end of this salmon season and the closing of the records for that season, I will meet with them at Port Simpson or Prince Rupert, whichever is most convenient to the majority of the people who are interested in the cannery.

I trust that the member will make himself available for such a meeting, at which time the history of this whole operation can be reviewed with persons interested in the cannery and its future. I emphasize that, because I'm not interested in meeting with people who want to quarrel about the past. If they want to come and understand what has taken place in the interests of the future of the cannery, then with those persons who have been and are still actively involved in its operation, I will try to answer all of the questions that may be posed. I appreciate that in the course of such an exercise there will be those who will wish to quarrel. I'm prepared, to the best of my ability and that of the people who have been involved, to answer all of their concerns. It may not be possible to satisfy them, but at least we will provide them with answers.

I would like to have the financial statistics available at that time so that if there are questions about its operation — who has benefited and who has not — then they can be fully answered. I do that not because I believe there is any problem which can't easily be resolved, but in the hopes that in such a way we can put down the disturbing factors which have plagued the cannery operation over its history so far and encourage the full and active support of those native Indian people who can make it work.

When I first became responsible for this operation in 1976, this operation was viewed by some as being another native Indian failure. I won't accept that definition of what has taken place at all. Quite frankly, if there has been any failure. It has been, I think, on the part of perhaps government — on the part of two governments — in not identifying the major problems which~would face an Indian enterprise operation. I think they've now been identified; I think there now is an understanding of what is required to ensure that this can be a well-run and effective operation. There has been a suggestion over the years that the government was prepared to dispose of the cannery and its opportunities to private ownership, to other persons who might wish to have the cannery and run it. That's not the case. It has been our steadfast view that the cannery should be supported as an Indian enterprise, and it remains that today.

So having said that. Mr. Chairman, may I just repeat my commitment to the member that at the conclusion of this salmon season, which won't be very long now, and the closing off of the books for that season, I'm prepared to convene such a meeting. I would like to work with him in advance, because even though we may differ politically, I'm satisfied that with his assistance the two of us can go a long way to overcoming some difficulties which should not plague this cannery, and encourage the support that is necessary for its future.

It will require some restructuring, I believe, of the existing organization; it may require some financial assistance, which, I think, is available from the people who themselves are interested in the success of the cannery. I think there are people who know that cannery now can work and who are prepared to make their own direct contribution towards that activity. But whatever the result, I think that we can map out a course whereby in the years to come that cannery will survive and sustain the people for whose benefit it was built.

MR. LEA: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for a number of things. I'd like to thank him, number one, for not ruling out of hand a public inquiry; it may be needed. I would like to thank him for his commitment to meet with the members of the cooperative after the salmon season. I commit myself to being there also, and I also commit myself to meeting with the minister when we get this session out of the way and discussing with him various methods of trying to solve the problems that we have. I'd like to thank him.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I should clarify one thing, because the people who are in the fishing industry in Port Simpson will say: "Well, that's great, because you don't close off the books of the cannery for this salmon season until next spring sometime when finally all of the payments are due." That's not what I meant. I meant as soon as the operation is there and they know how much the pack is, where it is, that it's in the hands of the marketers for handling and so on.... Maybe they have to tidy up any amounts due to fishermen, but I don't think we should wait that long; that's just a question of detail. I'm talking about when the pack is in, and they've got themselves cleaned up for the season. That's when we should meet.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss with the minister the question of wiretapping in the province of British Columbia. The question of the legal infringements of our

[ Page 3948 ]

human rights — the rights of privacy which in a democracy we take for granted, but which we must always be ready to protect. In the middle of April I put a question on the order paper which I am surprised has not been answered. It's question number 23, and I thought it would have been answered before these estimates came before the House.

I'm going to repeat the questions.

"1) Were any court orders for wiretapping granted in British Columbia in 1979? 2) If the answer to No. 1 is yes, how many? 3) If the answer to No. 1 is yes, which judges and how many did each judge grant? 4) Did the RCMP or local police forces engage in any wiretapping without a court order? 5) If the answer to No. 4 is yes, how many and by what force?"

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Now I don't know why this question has not been answered. One can only presume after a period of four months that it was not answered because the Attorney-General did not want to answer this particular question, and I'm at a loss to know why these public matters cannot be brought forward and debated in this House.

I would like to know if there are abuses in the granting of permission for wiretapping. I want to know whether it's a question of a wholesale granting of wiretaps in this province, whether the forces that are wanting the wiretapping have to prove any case at all, or whether the orders are granted automatically.

The other questions that I would like to have answered.... I presume that there are a number of judges who would be very sticky in granting any orders for wiretapping. I would therefore guess that if wiretaps are being granted in any great number, they are being granted by relatively few judges. I want to know the names of those judges who are granting the wiretaps and those who are certainly limiting the number of wiretaps that are being granted. There's no question in my mind that with the new technology in the world the dangers of abuses in wiretapping can be numerous. I think it's a serious question that should be taken up seriously by the Attorney-General to determine what is going on in British Columbia in the field of wiretapping and scientific surveillance.

It's my opinion that no single judge should be given the power to order a wiretap. I submit that there should be two or three judges sitting together. I appreciate the fact that wiretaps may be necessary in some cases, but I don't think wiretaps should be used as an excuse for other normal police surveillance that has been carried over the years — as an easy way out or a simpler method of getting the information that was previously obtained by other methods. It's my opinion that there should be at least two or possibly three judges sitting on any application for a wiretap to make sure that our freedoms are protected. It is my opinion that there must be ample proof that no other method of police investigation can obtain the evidence that is required and there is no other feasible method of obtaining such evidence.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

I want to be assured by the Attorney-General that these orders for wiretaps are not merely humdrum things that are granted by judges to give many permits for wiretaps for the purpose of obtaining evidence which could be obtained in a number of other ways. I hope that the Attorney-General will answer these questions. He's had notice of them for four months now and I presume he's ready to answer them today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't answer the questions from the member on the order paper, but I'm sure the member is aware that on April 29 I tabled in this House the report for the calendar year 1979, which is prepared under the protection of privacy provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. Not only did I file the report for 1979, which provides all of the information that the member sought with regard to the number of applications for electronic surveillance and much more, but I also tabled at the time the supplementary reports for the years 1975 to 1978 inclusive. The reason that those supplementary reports were filed was that each year as cases in respect of which electronic surveillance has been used progressed through the courts, the statistics changed slightly. Therefore under the system which is in place in this province whereby full and complete and extensive records are kept with respect to such matters, there is a continuing update of all this information. It's important for the information to be available and it is very appropriate that the provisions of the Criminal Code specify the maintenance of such records.

I suppose I might also point out to the member that while the Criminal Code of Canada makes it obligatory for the Solicitor General of Canada to table his report, there is no such obligation falling upon the Attorney-General of any of the provinces. Notwithstanding that, since the privacy provisions were introduced in the Criminal Code in 1974, it has been the practice of Attorneys-General in this province to file such annual reports in this House. Specifically, in 1979 — for the member's benefit — there were 78 authorizations for interceptions of communications. In 1978 there were 133, in 1977 there were 89 and in 1972 there were 76.

The member also asked questions as to which judges made the orders permitting these interceptions. Mr. Member, no such record is kept of that factor. I suppose that those people designated by the Attorney-General to make applications for authorizations — and they are all Crown counsel — could keep such a record; but the applications are made throughout the length and breadth of the province, and it has not been our practice to do so. As a matter of fact, I see no value in keeping such a record, because the obligations which face each judge in determining whether or not an authorization for interception should be granted are the same, and they are spelled out in the Criminal Code. If the member will look at part 4 of the Criminal Code, he will find that those are spelled out.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

To assist him, maybe I could refer to section 178.13 of the Code, which spells out those matters of which the judge must be satisfied. He must be satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to grant the order. He must be satisfied that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed. He must be satisfied that other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or that there is an urgency in the matter such that it would be impractical to carry out investigations of an offence using other investigative procedures.

I wish to assure the member that there are only, a limited

[ Page 3949 ]

number of senior Crown counsel designated and who thereby have my authorization to seek such orders. When I became Attorney-General the number of persons who held such authorizations was approximately 40. Since becoming Attorney-General, I have reviewed the list of persons who have that authority, and it has been reduced to 22 — for the purpose of ensuring that when this final and extraordinary step is taken in the investigation of criminal activities, there can be no question as to the qualifications of the person who would make such an application.

I must also point out to the member — and he will find this in the Code — that the material which is used in support of the application is by law retained by the judge and sealed by him. That information is not available for examination by any person, save on application to the court, and if such application is ever made, notice is given to the Attorney-General so that he may be represented in the proceedings where the disclosure of such information is sought.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the member that his suggestion that there be more than one judge involved is not one which I think is unworthy of consideration, but I would point out that the Criminal Code of Canada is a federal statute. If there is to be a change in this regard, it is a matter which can only be attended to with the assistance of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General for Canada. I would have thought that if there were a need for such a change, those persons in the House of Commons who share the member's views with regard to the seriousness of wiretapping exercises would have raised those with the Minister of Justice. To my knowledge, that has not been done.

MR. LORIMER: I want to thank the Attorney-General for his answer. However, the filings that he referred to, of course, only dealt with the first question which I asked. Which judges granted the orders was, of course, not on file, and the minister advises that he does not have that information, but he assumes that it's probably not necessary to have that information.

The information which I have received might indicate that he should maybe take an interest in who is granting the applications. Although I have no personal knowledge myself, there has been a suggestion made to me that most applications are taken before certain judges. I would ask the Attorney-General to take an interest in that particular aspect of the granting of applications.

I also know that it is a federal statute, and I presume that if the minister found my suggestions feasible he might take them up with the Minister of Justice in Ottawa.

Apart from that, the other question I asked was whether he had knowledge of taps that were placed without court orders. He has not answered that part of the question, and I hope he might advise if he has any knowledge of wiretaps being placed without the proper procedures being used.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the use of electronic surveillance without authority, certainly the police officers in this province.... I can assure the member that with respect to those matters which fall within my jurisdiction as Attorney-General, there have been none. The member may say, well, how can you be sure. The technical problems associated with instituting electronic surveillance are considerable. When the privacy act provisions of the Criminal Code were introduced, there was established a detailed process which is undertaken before electronic surveillance takes place. It involves the filing of applications. first of all, by investigating police officers with senior members of their police forces. They are then passed to the people who are involved in electronic surveillance work to determine whether or not electronic surveillance is possible. At each stage there is an additional form which is completed and sent forward to the records section, to which I made reference.

Only after those steps are taken do the investigating officers, with appropriate written authority from their police forces, present themselves to Crown counsel and lay out the basis upon which they believe that a court would be satisfied to make the order. Therefore, with each of those steps being taken, Mr. Member, you can be satisfied that the people who do the electronic surveillance technical work do not become involved until each of those steps has taken place, and until documentation is in place to show that each of the steps has taken place. Then and only then, with a judicial authorization in their hands, are the technics undertaken.

I cannot speak for those areas which come under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General of Canada. But I can assure you that the same procedures are involved when electronic surveillance is undertaken by forces under his jurisdiction.

MR. HYNDMAN: Very briefly this afternoon, I want to refer to the Attorney-General a topic which has been of some recent concern to me. Today, as coincidence would have it, it was highlighted in this morning's Vancouver Province in a front-page story with the headline: "Vernon Lawyers Want Notary Kept From Law Business." The story highlights in Vernon what is apparently the resumption, after many years, of a dispute between lawyers and notaries public in various parts of the province as to what range of work notaries should be doing and what number of notaries there should be. For the benefit of the Attorney-General, I would like to quote just very briefly from this article, then add some comments of mine, and put a suggestion to the Attorney-General. I would appreciate his comment. The article reads in part as follows:

"Lawyers in Vernon are going to B.C. supreme court to try and prevent a recently graduated notary public from setting up shop there.

"Notaries say the case is part of a growing effort by the legal profession to find work for young lawyers.

"The Vernon Bar Association's challenge is based on a 1921 statute that gives lawyers the right to formally oppose new notary licences that they feel are not required in any given district.

"The statute has been seldom used since a 'gentleman's agreement ' was made in 1957 between notaries and the Law Society of B.C. to end a bitter rivalry between the two professions."

And the article continues.

As a member of the bar of British Columbia who's practised for some 13 years, I'm concerned to see headlined news of the apparent resumption of some very old hostilities between the practising bar and notaries. I say that because I think a very high percentage of practising lawyers and a very high percentage of practising notaries in this province get along together well and enjoy very cordial, constructive and harmonious relationships. In Vancouver South, within a radius of just a few blocks, for example, on Fraser Street, there are, I think, three notaries and perhaps half a dozen

[ Page 3950 ]

lawyers in practice. They enjoy a very cordial and constructive working relationship, and I think the public in that area of Vancouver South is well served by all of them.

I have some particular interest in this matter, having served for seven years as secretary-treasurer of the Vancouver bar association — from 1967 until 1973. The Vancouver bar association is the largest of the county bar associations in British Columbia. During those years its membership grew from about 1,500 to 2,000, and one of the interesting things we had to do during the course of our regular agenda meetings was to review, on a monthly basis, applications in respect of the replacement of notarial seals in the lower mainland of B.C. Under the understanding reached in the mid-1950s, it was agreed that, although the Law Society of British Columbia would not object to the proposed number of notarial seals, on the other hand the notaries agreed not to seek to expand that number. Nonetheless, it remained the agreed jurisdiction of the geographically relevant bar associations to have placed before them proposed nominations of notaries to replace a vacancy in a sea], and if there was objection in terms of fitness for the seal the bar associations were entitled to file such objection. I think, if memory serves me correctly, during all those seven years, and through the fairly large number of applications processed through the Vancouver bar association, there was not one case of objection in terms of fitness, and at all times we felt there was a very cordial working relationship between the Vancouver bar association and the Law Society of B.C. on the one hand and the Society of Notaries Public on the other.

I am therefore distressed that the gentleman's agreement, as it has been described, of the mid-1950s is now, apparently, in some jeopardy. I think some tribute should be paid to Judge Alfred Watts, QC, who was secretary of the Law Society of British Columbia for about 20 years after World War II, and who on behalf of the Law Society was the person substantially responsible for negotiating that agreement; and to Alec Matthew, a former member of this assembly, who was also the president of the Society of Notaries Public. That gentleman's agreement, it seems, has worked quietly and well for about 25 years, and as I say, it is now in some jeopardy.

If the press story today is substantially accurate — and I believe there have been some similar local reports from other parts of the province — what appears to be breaking out is, as described-in the press, a "bitter rivalry" or a form of local civil war between lawyers and notaries, ending up in the courtroom, and an adversarial contest between local lawyers and local notaries as to whether or not the number of notaries should be increased in a community. My concern is that everybody will lose in the case of an adversarial contest like that. It's inevitable that if local lawyers and notaries are going to go to court and battle each other over the correct number of notaries in an area, there will be harsh and bitter words and charges and allegations as to the correctness of the number, quality and range of services performed by lawyers and notaries. Neither the lawyers nor the notaries will emerge from that kind of a debate in a positive sense, and the public, which is the most important party to such a controversy, because they face the consequences of it, will be confused and distressed, and to the degree the public are familiar with lawyers or notaries who have been savaged in argument they will be concerned that serious allegations have been made in respect of notaries or members of the bar that they know.

I think it is going to be a regrettable and unfortunate thing if this issue of public policy, which it really is — the issue being how many notaries there should be in B.C. In the 1980s and what range of services they should perform — is settled in a courtroom in an adversarial system. It is important as a matter of public policy; I think the place for it to be settled is in this Legislature through legislation.

My suggestion to those members of the bar of British Columbia who are concerned on a local basis about this is that they call or institute a truce, if they are thinking of fomenting further legal action, and that instead they let the two appropriate bodies work on this problem, those appropriate bodies being the Law Society of British Columbia on behalf of the lawyers and the Society of Notaries Public on behalf of the notaries. It's my understanding — and I'm very pleased to see it — that in the Vancouver Province article this morning it was pointed out that those two appropriate bodies — the Law Society and the Society of Notaries Public — have been working together constructively in recent months on this problem. Therefore my suggestion is that lawyers on a local basis who have concerns about the numbers of notaries and the work they are doing express those concerns through the Law Society — their regional benchers — and similarly that notaries should be responding through their society, as I think they're doing.

What we have here, regrettably, I think, is a potential breaking away from the constructive working relationship between the Law Society and the Society of Notaries Public. That breaking away, if it means a spate of local adversarial courtroom disputes, is not going to produce progress to anyone. As I say, it would create even more public confusion and distress.

The suggestion I would like to make to the Attorney-General flows from a further comment in this morning's Province article: "The notaries society and Law Society have been working together recently to urge the government to amend the statute. So far the notaries society has received excellent cooperation from the Law Society, but neither side has yet to approach Victoria." It would appear from that that the two appropriate bodies — the Law Society and the Society of Notaries Public — are working together, presumably to bring to the Attorney-General a joint proposal for legislative change, likely next session.

If their work is not finished and we're going to have an outbreak of some regrettable local hostilities, my question to the Attorney-General is whether he might consider taking an earlier initiative than that and perhaps appoint a person or persons to look into the matter immediately, to call over representatives from both the Law Society and the notaries, and to review this matter. That would have the following benefits. Apart from the Law Society and the Society of Notaries Public, which are already working on their own suggestions for change, those lawyers in communities around the province who are individually concerned can additionally express their concerns by correspondence or a brief or by coming here in person. But we're not that far away — believe it or not, Mr. Chairman — from the next session of the Legislature. It's perhaps six or eight months away, which is not, I think, a long time for people to wait for some suggestions and comment from the Attorney-General's ministry, and that's the appropriate place whence change should come. It is a matter of public policy; changes are best reflected in the legislation governing notaries and the Law Society; those changes are best debated in this chamber.

[ Page 3951 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, my suggestion to lawyers who are concerned on a local basis but are not prepared to wait for the work of the Law Society is that they please be patient. If they have concerns they should direct them to the Attorney-General and not to Her Majesty's courts. I would be interested in a comment from the Attorney-General as to whether, in view of this apparently regrettable trend towards some local hostilities and, it would appear, the regrettable end to the gentleman's agreement of the last 25 years, some informal initiative might now be taken by his ministry to have those concerns considered here in Victoria with a view to legislative proposals next spring and some debate in this chamber, the proper place for expression of public policy, next session.

MR. COCKE: We hear the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) calling for legislation. I know that that's against the rules, so I won't call for legislation.

As a matter of fact, this was an issue that I was going to deal with to some extent. I want to say to the Attorney-General that in 1957 there were 330 notaries in the province of British Columbia. Today, in 1980, with double the population in the province, there are still 330 notaries. So I don't see where there's going to be any great benefit to appeal to the Law Society to put forward some kind of proposition that would benefit the notaries.

I suggest that the notaries are scared to death. Those that are there probably don't want to rock the boat too much. There is a problem. The member says that he would like to see it not break out in hostility. I would just like to take the member to Surrey at the present time where that hostility has already broken out. One of the notaries in the area either died or retired — I can't remember which — and there is one notary public vacancy. That vacancy is not to be filled, as far as the local lawyers are concerned. They're saying: "There's lots of us." The only problem is they're not available, and they cost more money. I might be dead wrong, but it strikes me that this cabal of lawyers in this province pretty well runs the legal affairs, and I think that maybe the Attorney-General should give us his impression of what he feels should be done in terms of giving the notaries an opportunity to practise, and giving them the opportunity not only to fill vacancies but maybe to better reflect the population as it now stands. If we're comparing 1957 to now, there's been a net reduction in terms of percentage of the population.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I asked the minister whether or not he took seriously the comments — irresponsible, in my view — of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) with respect to motorcycle helmets. As I said yesterday, for us to ignore that question would be a very sad event indeed. The hospitals will attest to the damage that's done even with helmets by that machine, and particularly with people who are relatively new motorcycle drivers, riders, or whatever. I suggest that it's going to be incredibly enhanced by this business of people deciding with bravado to ride around without a helmet. There's very little protection, indeed, on a motorcycle. Some of them are highly powered and very fast. I believe that what protection can be afforded should be afforded, because the public pays the shot. A person can go ahead and commit suicide if he wishes, but if he isn't quite successful the rest of us are going to pay for an extended period in hospital. So from that standpoint, I think the Attorney-General should take a very good, hard look at this whole question.

The third thing, and the last, that I want to talk to the Attorney-General about is this question.... Here's a file, Mr. Chairman. of a very sad case. I'm not going to talk specifically about the case, but here's a kid — I believe he's...

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Seventy-three years old.

MR. COCKE: ...eighteen. You know, the Minister of Forests always makes silly, trifling remarks when somebody's trying to talk seriously about a very important question.

Here's a kid who's been in and out of court, in and out of probation, in and out of every conceivable situation — never anything particularly serious. He's mentally retarded. I believe his IQ is something in the order of the very low seventies, or just around seventy. He's very lonely, gets himself into trouble, and there really is no service.... I noticed my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) saying the other day that Human Resources winds up with these cases. I wish that that were the case for many of them. Often they wind up in the Attorney-General's area of responsibility, and that's in the jails and so on for want of some place or some other means of looking after their needs. I know that there has been some suggestion that the Ministry of Health is going to improve or expand the facilities of the mental health division in Burnaby. That's needed, but I believe that is more for the dangerous person requiring real security for a time. There is another group out there, Mr. Chairman, that really require ministers and their ministries getting together and trying to develop cooperative programs, trying to develop ways and means of handling these people so that we keep them out of our jails. There is a young fellow that keeps getting into trouble just looking for somebody to say something to him, just somebody to give him some recognition — the same kind of recognition that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) seems to require at all times. I just wonder whether or not the human services committee of the cabinet is looking very seriously at the kinds of situations that I've outlined here.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I don't want to go into any detail on this particular case, because if I do, then it's going to identify a person. But there are people with the need that isn't the heavy security situation, but people out there who are, for one reason or another, winding up in our jails, completely unnecessarily.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman. I thought it appropriate for me to get up at this time and speak on this one topic, since my colleague who just sat down mentioned it, and before the minister replies I could perhaps just provide the minister with a few more details. This relates once again to the problem we're having in British Columbia with a recent court ruling which, in effect, makes it legal not to wear motorcycle helmets. There have been a number of accidents over the last few days, and I understand there was another one just this afternoon.

I want to give the Attorney-General just a bit of information on this whole situation. One of the basic problems is that the type of helmet that has been used in British Columbia is

[ Page 3952 ]

not safe in any event. I spent a great deal of time and research on this and made copious notes. I would like to read into the record some of the notes I've made on this subject, Mr. Chairman. Then I will suggest a possible solution to the minister.

In 1970 the Canadian Standards Association passed three regulations through the motor-vehicle branch, instructing that helmets be shatter-resistant and resistant to grease and gasoline saturation, that weight be not more than two and a half pounds and that 120 degrees of peripheral vision be embodied in all helmet designs. These three requirements, for whatever reason, were dropped in 1971. The contract was given to the B.C. Research Council to find out what happened when grease and gasoline come in contact with polycarbonate plastic, a substance used in motorcycle helmets. They were told that polycarbonate plastic crystallizes with grease and gasoline and shatters on impact. The reason given when the standards were dropped were that the manufacturers of polycarbonate plastic helmets — 60 percent of all helmets sold — couldn't manufacture a safe helmet.

The AETL, Approved Engineering and Testing Laboratory of California, was asked to test CSA-approved helmets and found that they barely even met United States Department of Transportation specifications. They found that even the ordinary yellow hardhat of the construction workers' type absorbs three times as much energy as the best motorcycle helmet made. They also discovered that if the manufacturer can't pass the standards presumably here in Canada, they bulk out the helmet. But the fact is that a fellow by the name of Bill Otto of Otto Labs told us that the amount of weight needed squares with the miles per hour in terms of how much safety it provides, and current helmets manufactured are dangerous because they are too heavy. We go into a lot of detail about why these helmets are unsafe. For example, when the driver is struck, the head moves in the direction of the force. The helmet lags behind the head. When the head reaches out, it ends movement of neck muscles and curtails movement. The heavy helmet is still moving, and 60 percent more force is put on the first and the second vertebrae. It has been shown to be enough force to snap the vertebrae.

Mr. Chairman, I have reams and reams of statistics here, but the fact is.... One of the points that I wish to make to the Attorney-General right now, as soon as I get his attention, is that there has been before the motor-vehicle branch — and on the minister's desk — a report called the Godfrey report, an independent report on motorcycle helmet safety. If the minister is not aware of it, I'm sure that his colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) must be. This report has certainly been before the motor vehicle branch for at least a year. This report makes a number of recommendations to which the government has paid no heed. I know that the minister is looking into this whole question of legality of implementing or upgrading the laws regarding motorcycle helmet safety. What I'm asking is that the recommendations in the so-called Godfrey report be implemented.

Secondly, we have before us in this House now a bill relating to amendments to the Motor-vehicle Act, Bill 44. I'm suggesting to the government that two simple amendments to that act, which we would support wholeheartedly as an opposition, would solve this whole problem of motorcycle safety for cyclists.

I know that most motorcyclists in the province do agree with helmet safety laws. The problem is that the helmets have been practically worthless. I'm very disappointed in the Canadian Standards Association for allowing this to happen. They're passing these inferior helmets and allowing them to be marketed. There are many other implications to this whole matter. I am disappointed that the government hasn't taken action. In my view, we can't wait for a six-month appeal or any of these other measures that have been discussed. In my view, two simple amendments to Bill 44, now before this House, would rectify the whole situation. Very simply, one amendment deals with implementing the recommendations in the Godfrey report so we have proper helmets. All the cyclist groups I've contacted over the last few days agree that they would not be averse to wearing helmets providing they were proper type helmets. Secondly, the second amendment to Bill 44 would be to compel all motorcyclists to wear the helmets. I think we will save a number of lives in British Columbia. It seems to me there is a death a day now caused by head injuries because of the current situation, and they are particularly young bikers. No helmet or anything else in the world is going to save a biker if he's travelling 100 miles per hour or if he's hit dead-on by an automobile, but for those cyclists who drive within the law certainly the helmet will be of great assistance.

It really concerns me that while the House is in session now that bill could be called this afternoon or tomorrow — whenever — at the government's discretion, and that law could be changed very quickly. In my view it would save literally — I don't know — 100 lives, whatever. It seems that recently there is one death a day. So I'm certainly asking the minister to talk to his colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and call that bill. The opposition will support amendments to that section. Stop the death on our highways because of that situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before responding, I'm sure the hon. member knows the restriction in Committee of Supply about talking about bills.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Make that statement to the committee.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A number of questions have been raised. The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) have both dealt with this.

I view the reported action made by the lawyers in Vernon as a retrograde step. The relationship between notaries and members of the legal profession in this province has functioned well over many years. There has been a growing measure of agreement and accommodation between the two societies, which I think should be fostered in the best interests of both the societies and the members of the public whom their members serve. I think it a retrograde step for lawyers in any part of this province to, in effect, take action which is a breach of an understanding which has functioned so well over the years. I would remind members that, as the member for New Westminster said, back in 1957 there were 300, or thereabouts, notaries public, and there are 300 today. If one would compare the number of lawyers there were in 1957 to the number of lawyers there are today, I think they will recognize that the proportion of notaries to lawyers has decreased markedly.

[ Page 3953 ]

I would hate to imagine the furor that would be created if somehow or other some interference were taken by government to limit the number of lawyers. That too would be a retrograde step. I would only ask those members of the legal profession to consider it very carefully.

I know that the two societies have been working together with regard to proposed statutory amendments. Those have not yet reached the ministry. I wish to say that I look forward to their joint recommendations on matters which may serve to improve the situation.

I will take it upon myself to communicate with the treasurer of the Law Society to determine whether or not there aren't some representations which he may make to ensure that we don't throw this matter back into the courts and undo so much of what has been properly adjusted over recent years.

Motorcycles and the helmets of their riders. Some people need helmets more than others.

MR. COCKE: Some people need helmets when it's far too late.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I echo the views of the member for New Westminster. I think that to ignore an opportunity to avail oneself of safety equipment because there happens to be no law requiring it is little short of foolish. We have had in the past 24 to 30 hours at least two deaths which apparently can be attributed to the failure to wear a protective helmet. And if there aren't deaths, there could be injuries. As the member for New Westminster has pointed out, that casts upon the individual a very significant personal damage, distress for his or her family, and significant costs to the state for medical and other treatment. Therefore the state has a direct interest in matters of this kind, in the same way that the state has had an interest in and has taken steps with regard to workers who are involved in industrial plants. All kinds of safety equipment are required to be used by them, and I think it seems unreasonable that a worker could work in a plant and be required to wear safety equipment which is found to be useful, but when he leaves the plant and drives home, he can suddenly ignore the safety equipment which may see him safely between his place of work and his residence, for example.

With respect to this matter I wish to make it clear that while I am advised by counsel who appeared in the recent court case that he believes the judge was in error, and he is prepared to proceed by way of an appeal that may take two or three months. So I posed to him what the situation would be if, in fact, the appeal court found that the judge was right. Then we would have no cure. I'm advised this afternoon that the best course of action is for the government to consider amendments to the statute, and I have given instructions this afternoon that work commence on those amendments in the hopes that we may be able to introduce them into this House for consideration before the end of these current sittings of the House.

I also say to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) that I recognize what he's saying and I have spoken to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) about the question of these standards.

MR. LAUK: Two years of neglect.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, okay, if it makes you feel better, two years of neglect, but the question of standards is something which has been viewed by the officials of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and they seem comfortable with the standards they have. But I am not. I see helmets being worn — as a matter of fact my son, who rides a motorbike, bought one for his wife for Christmas. I was astounded when I picked it up and found how heavy the helmet was for a very slight woman to wear, and I thought to myself, if she ever fell off the bike or was involved in an accident the effect of the helmet itself, and particularly its shape, would be likely to cause her serious injury, to her neck or whatever the case may be. So you end up being damaged by the helmet and I think that's inappropriate.

I also wish to make it clear that from the legal point of view we face a very serious problem, because if you have standards and someone wears a helmet, the question is — and the member for Vancouver Centre will recognize this whether you can prove that the helmet that was worn'did or did not meet the standard. Therefore the effect of enforcement of any regulation or law may be difficult unless this matter of standards is very carefully examined. So what I'll be recommending to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, in conjunction with the change we will make to overcome the current problem, is that we do get into this matter of the review that is necessary to ensure that what we're requiring people to wear is what they should wear and what will provide them with the proper measure of safety.

The member for New Westminster raised concerns about young persons who come into conflict with the law and find themselves in the corrections system but, by reason of a low intelligence or certain mental problems, perhaps don't receive the kind of care that is appropriate for their condition. I wish to say that this is a continuing matter which is dealt with by the interministerial committee of the Ministries of Human Resources, Attorney-General, Health, and Education. We do, in the corrections branch, provide the services of consultant psychologists and psychiatrists. Within the system we also provide, through the Ministry of Education, for teachers with special education programs and courses in remedial services. The interministerial committee is available to review particular cases and, if necessary, to provide other resources from the community, and all the ministries are now extending these services on a regional planning basis. Next year we expect to see, through the Ministry of Health, significant expansion of The Maples residential facility, and while those facilities will be designed for a few very serious cases it is a much needed facility in the province.

MR. PASSARELL: A number of questions I'd like to raise to the Attorney-General concerning his responsibility with native affairs, and since our heated debate last year at this time on the same issue the minister and myself have discussed the issue confidentially a number of times. We've exchanged some literature, so I certainly hope today's debate will be less heated.

There's still a number of answers — questions to be answered. Mr. Chairman — and one of the first ones is: what is the minister doing in regards to his responsibility for native affairs for the province? It's interesting looking through on the estimate that there's nothing dealing with the first citizens of the province under the estimates to a certain extent. Also the aspect of what has the minister done in his term in the last six months, in regards to native affairs. It's interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that back in 1976 the minister made

[ Page 3954 ]

certain statements to the Nishga nation which still haven't been acted upon. It almost been four and a half years, Mr. Minister, and people in the area are particularly wondering when you're going to act upon the statement you made to the Nishga nation — statements concerning land claims. What have you offered the people in the north and throughout this province, the first citizens of this province, in regard to the programs and following through on statements that you have made? It appears, nothing.

In a sense, Mr. Chairman, this is not a political matter but almost a human rights matter.

There are a number of native issues that must be addressed by this minister. He can't keep on putting it off year after year.

1) The cutoff lands. What's happening on this specific program?

2) Land claims. Also what is happening?

Another aspect that I think the minister should address himself is the aspect of native people in the expansion of mines. For instance, the Kitsault project. That has the capability, Mr. Chairman, of destroying the heritage of the native people in that particular area — the Nishgas — which will cause an infringement upon their traditional lifestyles if this mine proceeds.

Another concern in regards to the free development aspect and the destruction of traditional customs and lifestyles is the proposed Hydro projects in the north, which the native people have addressed this minister and other ministers of the government regarding their lifestyles and the effect of these developments upon their families.

As the minister responsible, Mr. Chairman, for native concerns in regard to the Stikine-Iskut and Liard project, what is the minister offering the three specific bands in the area? What are you doing for the Iskut or the Tahltans or for the Kaska?

The minister's portfolio includes native affairs, but it appears to be a minor consequence to this minister in making any statements or dealing upon the actions in his own statements. I guess the minister could stand up after and say that the first citizens of this province are not treated any differently than any other groups of people in the province. And I wonder, Mr. Chairman: is this the actual case? Are the broken promises, the confiscation of land, the regulations placed upon traditional hunting and fishing rights, the reserve system, the lack of medical and schools and general facilities on reserves, treating the first citizens of this province the same as other residents are treated?

Another aspect — the Blueberry band. The minister knows this aspect and the issue that the Blueberry band have faced. And it appears that this government is failing to act because it falls between a jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments. I would certainly hope the minister could give some kind of suggestions to the Blueberry band regarding the problems they are facing this fall.

There are a number of valid concerns, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, and the questions need to be addressed by this minister. Particularly, it's been almost four and a half years since you made those statements to the Nishgas. The Nishgas are still wondering and waiting for your reply. I certainly hope you act upon your promises. That's....

I'd like him to answer those questions, and then if we have anything else we can discuss it later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I just would say to the member, as I think I said a year ago, that he misunderstands the jurisdictional responsibility which is extended to me by the government with regard to native Indian matters. I will repeat it again for him: it was a decision of this government, as it was of previous governments, that we would not establish a Ministry of Indian Affairs and thereby encounter the same problems that have been encountered at the federal level, but rather provide for native Indians with a means by which they would have access to all of the ministries of government with respect to those issues which were of concern to them. That has been our policy.

I have received from Indian groups throughout the province, as their needs require, representations in this respect, and through the officials available to me I have been assured that access to the various ministries of the government is made available to them. If they require special assistance, then that special assistance is provided.

With regard to cutoff lands, it is a matter of continuing regret to me that the matter has not been resolved. I believe the situation remains almost exactly as it was a year ago; that is not a consequence of any failure on the part of the provincial government to discharge its responsibilities under the negotiations which have taken place. The position of the province is exactly the same as it was a year ago. It is a position which was fully accepted by the Indian people who were involved with those reserves from which lands were cut off so many years ago. The continuing negotiations over the past year have been between the Indian bands and the federal government with regard to their part of the settlement process. A significant advance was being made during the Conservative government. We are, however, distressed to find that since the change in government earlier this year no positive action has been taken. As a matter of fact there appears to be some difficulty arising out of a lawsuit which the native Indian people have now commenced. I have written to Hon. John Munro on this subject and met with him, and he has agreed that they would take such steps as are required to get the parties back to discussions aimed at ending the impasse. We are anxious for this to be done, because once the general principles for settlement of the cutoff land claim are complete, then we, the provincial government, have a very major job to do in resolving those special problems associated with each of the Indian reserves.

With regard to land claims the position remains precisely as it has always been in the province of British Columbia. We believe that the resolution of land claims through a general land claim settlement, if it is to be handled in that way, rests entirely within the responsibility of the federal government.

We do, however, believe that there is a more effective way of resolving the difficulties which are experienced by the native Indian people, and it was in this respect that we entered into direct discussions with the federal government and the Nishga band. Those discussions have been continuing. The Nishga band, I understand, is now awaiting the opportunity to discuss with the two governments their fisheries policy proposal. I have met with my officials and the officials of the Ministry of Environment, and we are ready to resume those discussions as soon as the federal ministry people are ready to come to the table. I understand that no date has been get for those meetings. As is typical this time of the year, because of the Nishga Indian involvement in the salmon fishing season, it is unlikely that those discussions will get underway until that season has wound up. However,

[ Page 3955 ]

we are anxious to return to a discussion of those issues which we believe are achievable by the governments in direct discussions with the Nishgas.

If the federal government wishes to pursue the prospect of general land claim settlement, then we hold the view that that is their entitlement. We would want to be associated with those discussions, but that's a decision which they will be obliged to make.

I might point out to the member that the change in portfolio which took place in November of last year resulted in the funds not being included in a separate vote; the funds are included in the administration and support vote, which is vote 22, under these estimates.

MR. NICOLSON: Just a short question. The minister mentioned cutoff lands. I'd like to bring to the minister's attention that the Lower Kootenay Indian band and the band in the Creston area are covered in the first book of the McKenna-McBride report. A large parcel of land south of Creston was given to the Indians by the commissioners. About a year later it was taken away and some other lands were given also, subsequent to their findings. That piece of land is not part of the lands that I understand to be under consideration, and that particular band of the Kootenay Indians at Creston — I can't remember the name of the mission, but it describes their band — is not listed. I researched this about a year ago and informed them, and indeed gave them a copy of the McKenna-McBride report, and the complexity of it is that some of those lands have been deeded away. In fact, the Creston golf course sits on some of that land. The other complexity is that the city has applied to use those lands for an airstrip. The lands have been Crown lands. There was $200,000 given to the city for the airport and another $200,000 is now promised for a total of $400,000 from the government under the airport expansion fund.

Yet this band has been totally ignored, and I think that there is, on the face of things, a claim there which should be considered and which should not be ignored. I think that a reading of that portion of the transcript and also an examination of the sequence of events whereby this land was given to them and then taken away for the reason that timber rights had been granted on those lands in perpetuity.... Well, there are no more timber rights on those lands and certainly that reason is no longer valid. They have retained, I believe, Mr. Harvey Ganser of Cranbrook as counsel.

I would urge the minister to look very seriously at that, because they're not even on the shopping list of cutoff lands and things are steamrolling ahead in terms of that land now being further alienated towards airport use. I would urge that the minister give that very serious consideration, to determine whether or not that should indeed be included among cutoff lands.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I believe it was yesterday that I asked a question of the minister with respect to foreign ownership of land in this province, and the minister indicated yesterday that he had assigned someone within his ministry to investigate the extent of foreign ownership of land — which he can easily do through the land titles office — but that that person had now left the ministry. I assumed from the minister's answer that that person had not been replaced and that no one has been assigned to look into the question of the extent of foreign ownership of land in this province. I might remind the committee, Mr. Chairman, that this is an issue that I have been raisin g year after year in this Legislature, trying to convince the government that it should adopt a policy with respect to absentee foreign purchases of British Columbia land.

I don't think the government is that interested in this issue, because form 16, which is the form on which people state their citizenship when they purchase land, has been collecting dust in boxes over in the land titles office for a number of years — no one has even looked at them. Now I don't know how serious the minister was when he assigned someone to have a look at the extent of foreign ownership by examining form 16, but apparently he wasn't that serious, because whoever was assigned is no longer with the ministry. That seemed to be the end of the matter — at least that's the impression that I got yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, this question is becoming a very serious one, in my view, particularly as it relates to farmland. The B.C. Institute of Agrologists, particularly up in the Peace River area, is most concerned about this and has communicated with the government and with MLAs on a number of occasions. You see, what's happened is that many of the other provinces have seen the light and have brought in legislation which restricts particularly the purchase of farm and recreation land in their provinces. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Prince Edward Island — all of these provinces now have legislation. As a result, people who are looking for investments in land in Canada are now looking at British Columbia. because other provinces, such as Alberta, have legislation that prohibits them from purchasing. Since the Alberta legislation was brought in, the government estimates that there has been a 90 percent reduction in the acquisition of farmland in that province by foreign buyers.

This is an important resource. Mr. Chairman. We have extensive foreign ownership in this country already, and here is an area where the provincial government can take some action over what I consider, in the case of farmland. to be one of our prime resources. I do not want to see the decisions with respect to the production of food in this province being made by people overseas who own the property.

Up in the Peace River — and here again the agrologists have to estimate, because they don't have form 16.- they don't have access to the information; the government has never provided it and has never shown any interest in providing it — the agrologists currently estimate that there are 280,600 acres owned by foreign investors. Up until the middle of 1978 — just two years ago — about 124,000 acres were owned, which means that in the last two years, according to the agrologists' estimates, some 156,000 acres have been purchased in the Peace River alone by absentee foreigners. Now that is a shameful situation, and the minister has not even taken enough interest to analyze the problem yet. Year after year after year I've raised this issue. The agrologists point out, I think. that what happens is that the foreign investment forces the price of land up so that our young people who are interested in getting into farming are not able to purchase the land. and in fact, in British Columbia, become tenants on foreign-owned land, particularly agricultural land. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. Certainly the other provinces have set examples of how this problem might be overcome. There's no specific benefit to Canadians as a result of all these foreign purchases. There is nothing but

[ Page 3956 ]

adverse effects from this kind of open purchase of British Columbia farmland by absentee foreigners that is permitted by this government.

I would just like to quote from the letter that was sent to us by the agrologists. They state, and I must concur with this: "We contend that our agricultural land base is a provincial non-renewable resource and should not be treated as an expendable commodity. The retention of the ownership of our agricultural land is absolutely essential to the economic and social well-being of our province." Then the letter goes on to request: "Again, please will this government have a took at this problem and take some action." I can only concur with what the agrologists are saying, and again plead today for the minister to take this problem seriously. In view of the fact that all of those acres are being alienated as quickly as they are — 156,000 in the last two years in the Peace River area — it is high time the minister took some action in this area. I would appreciate his comments too, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEVI: I'm going to ask the Attorney-General a number of questions in respect of the Farris case. I tried, on a number of occasions during the Premier's estimates to get some answers, and I might just add, Mr. Chairman, that the reason I did it then is because I characterized the Premier as probably the individual who was the bridge between the former Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General. The reason I wanted to get something from him was that it's very difficult to direct the kind of questions I want to direct to a former minister; it's not his responsibility now. I may have the same trouble with the present minister because he wasn't the minister when this particular item in respect of the Farris case came up.

However, since his appointment in November of last year we did have an inquiry with respect to his deputy — and I'm not going to go into that; I understand that there's a case before the courts — in which one aspect of the Farris case was looked at, so presumably there were discussions between the deputy and the present Attorney-General with respect to the Farris case. I would presume — after all he's a lawyer — that he would have read the file. I hope he read the file, because that's what it's all about. What I want to ask the Attorney-General in the beginning — I'll sit down and give him a chance to respond — is.... In view of the general discussion that he was aware of — he's been aware of the discussions in this House and in the press — is he satisfied, as the Attorney-General, that the matters relating to the former chief justice of the appeal court, Mr. Farris, can be left as they are — that it's in the public interest that nothing else take place, that there in fact be no inquiry? Is he himself satisfied that in the interests of the public, that's where the matter should lie? I'd like to get his opinion on that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I have had general discussions with the Deputy Attorney-General with respect to those aspects of the matter which have touched upon him. As to whether I am satisfied that matters can be left as they are, unless there are allegations made to the proper police authorities in the province that there has been some transgression of the law which could be investigated by the police, then there is nothing further that can be done by me as Attorney-General in this province. I'm sure the member knows that judges of the superior courts in this province are the appointees of the Minister of Justice of Canada and that it is his office which holds the jurisdiction and bears the obligation in respect of other matters. If there are improprieties on the part of judges of our superior courts, then those matters are dealt with by the Judicial Council of Canada, which under the chairmanship of the chief justice of Canada is composed of chief justices and associate chief justices in all of the provinces.

MR. LEVI: I have another question which perhaps the minister can answer. Sometime earlier this year an individual by the name of Robert Wilson met with a policeman, with a Mr. Lees present, and laid certain information in respect to Mr. Justice Farris. As I understand it that matter was noted by the policeman and turned in to the Vancouver city police. Does the minister have any knowledge that such a complaint was lodged by a citizen by the name of Wilson?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I received a copy of some material which indicated that a Mr. Wilson had spoken with two police officers of the Vancouver city police department, indicating that he had certain knowledge with respect to matters touching upon Mr. Farris. I was also advised that these matters had been reviewed by senior officers of the Vancouver city police department, and that they would take whatever steps were appropriate in the circumstances. It's a police investigation and should be left with them.

MR. LEVI: Well, I presume that the minister is saying that an investigation is continuing. Am I correct in saying that? He said that such information was there and was being investigated. Is the investigation completed, or is it an ongoing investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would not know, because police investigation files are opened and are closed when either the extent of the investigation has been thoroughly exhausted — in which case that's the end of the matter — or when charges are laid. In either event, even when charges are laid the Attorney-General is not notified. It generally comes to my attention in the course of some press release.

MR. LEVI: Leaving aside the complaint by the citizen, and repeating some of the statements that I made during the Premier's estimates, it is a matter of public knowledge — it was in the press — that the involvement.... That's not the correct word; I should withdraw that. I should say that the problem that came about in respect to the former chief justice was as a result of a police investigation in respect to attempts to obtain evidence on an individual suspected of trafficking in drugs, and that an application was made to the court and granted to intercept a private communication. A wiretap was placed on a residence. It turned out to be the residence of one Wendy King. During the course of this procedure the voice of the chief justice was intercepted on two occasions. Some of this information was made available during the trial of Wendy King.

I'm not a lawyer, but it was a surprise to me, as a result of the King case, that I'm informed by other lawyers that a rather unprecedented situation ensued from that trial: all the evidence was sealed. I asked a number of people if this was something that usually happened. It apparently did happen. It was the order of Judge Jones that the evidence be sealed.

I appreciate what the Attorney-General said in respect to the appointment of judges of the county and supreme courts. They are the responsibility of the federal government. If there are complaints flowing from those individuals, there is

[ Page 3957 ]

a procedure through the federal Judicial Council. In fact, as a result of information made available, I presume from the wiretap, information was forwarded to the Minister of Justice — we're talking now about 1978 — and the case was referred to the federal Judicial Council. Then the judge himself resigned, and there was a change in the Minister of Justice — I think the case started with Otto Lang, who was the minister then, and Marc Lalonde became Minister of Justice, and he said that an investigation was not proceeding because the man was no longer a judge. The case was next raised in the House of Commons by Ian Waddell, who is the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway. He wrote to the then Minister of Justice under the Conservative government, the hon. Senator Jacques Flynn, saying:

"I am raising in the House of Commons today the matter of the Wendy King case and the resignation of the former chief justice of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, which was apparently related to that case. Last week Ms. King pleaded guilty to a charge of keeping a common bawdy-house in the Provincial Court of British Columbia in Vancouver. I note that a stay of proceedings was entered on her co-accused, who has also been charged with trafficking in heroin.

"Your predecessor in the previous Liberal government, Otto Lang, took the position that there would be no inquiry into the matter once the former chief justice had resigned. Is this the position of your government? I would hope that you might take a different view and appoint a special commissioner, perhaps an able and respected lawyer of the calibre of, say, Mr. Arthur Maloney, QC, to look into the matter to see if any improprieties have occurred. There are numerous reasons for this: the fact that the appeal court has been put under a cloud, the fact that the court records of the King case were sealed, the fact of apparent plea-bargaining — to name only a few.

"What most concerns me is that many people in British Columbia apparently think that justice for the established and for people in high places is different than justice for the ordinary citizen. That, of course, is not justice at all. I look forward to your early reply,

Yours sincerely,
Ian Waddell."

Senator Flynn replied to Mr. Waddell on November 16, 1979:

"Dear Mr. Waddell:

"I refer to your letter of November 6, 1979, regarding the prosecution of a Ms. King, and, as I understand it, suggesting an inquiry into the resignation of the former chief justice of British Columbia and the circumstances surrounding both of these matters.

"As you may be aware, the Judges Act establishes a procedure for an investigation or inquiry into allegations of misconduct on the part of a judge. Investigative functions under the act come to an end on the resignation of the judge. The judge in question is not now sitting on the bench, and therefore concern for the due administration of justice would no longer be advanced by an inquiry.

"As for an independent inquiry into the proceedings relating to Ms. King, those proceedings are, of course, within the responsibilities of the Attorney General of British Columbia, and such an inquiry would be or could be regarded as an intrusion by the federal government into matters of provincial concern. On the information that is available to me, I do not feel such an inquiry would be warranted or productive.

Yours sincerely,
Jacques Flynn."

Mr. Chairman, in the last several months in this province we have had a number of inquiries. We've had one inquiry by a judge, Mr. Justice Seaton. We've had a number of internal inquiries conducted by the Attorney-General's staff into matters which were raised in the Legislature in regard to various types of behaviour.

Yesterday in the House the Attorney-General was responding to my colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), in respect to, I presume, the Prelypchan report on the Eckardt commission. During the time that the Attorney-General was replying, my colleague said: "Why didn't you have a public inquiry with a supreme court judge?" The Attorney-General replied: "You don't have a public inquiry in order to determine these matters. Do you have a public inquiry every time there is a suggestion that there has been a breach of the criminal law? That might come later, Mr. Member. It might have come later if there had been any substance whatever to the suggestions that there was political interference...." He goes on to relate that to the Eckardt commission.

What interests me is the view of the Attorney-General in respect to public inquiries. He says you don't have a public inquiry every time there is a suggestion that there has been a breach of criminal law; that might come later. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that, based on the information that the Attorney-General has in respect to the information that was picked up from the tapes and in respect to the arrangements that were made between Crown counsel and defence counsel in terms of what, I think, is characterized as plea-bargaining — that arrangements were made and discussions were had between counsel — and in view of the fact that we are not dealing here with a deputy minister and investigating his behaviour, nor are we investigating a commissioner who was appointed to redraw the boundaries, nor are we looking at what kind of arrangements were made in terms of the three cases which were put before us, which I gather we can't talk about.... We're dealing here, in the interests of the justice system, with the resignation of the former chief justice of the appeal court who, when he was a judge. was the premier judge of this province. Yet we had a number of events which left a lot of doubt in the minds of the public, particularly in respect to sudden sealing of evidence. There was an exchange of letters between Crown counsel and defence counsel. During the case the defence counsel went to the supreme court to get a ruling. He later wrote to the Crown counsel saying: "If the ruling is not successful then I think that my client will be prepared to plead guilty, you will not have any cause to call witnesses, and the matter will be finished." It happened that at the time of the trial in 1979, there were some 80 witnesses that had been subpoenaed, 25 of them for the Crown. Yet a plea of guilty was entered and the case came to an end.

I suggest to you. Mr. Chairman, and to the Attorney-General, that given all of the facets of that particular case an inquiry is in fact warranted. It is warranted in order to clear

[ Page 3958 ]

the air in respect to how this thing was dealt with. I think it's not sufficient.... I appreciate what the Attorney-General said. He made some reference to the Judicial Council, but we're now dealing with something that is clearly within his jurisdiction. That was the information or advice that Mr. Waddell got from the Minister of Justice. Let me ask the Attorney-General — because he did say, and I don't want to quote him wrongly.... When I said to him, "Were you satisfied?", I don't think he said that he was. I accept that. But surely, at this stage of the game, in terms of what we're talking about now.... I've been trying to get this matter before the House for several months. I first raised it in March of this year and now I'm raising it again. It seems to me that if the Attorney-General, in consultation with his cabinet colleagues, decides that there have to be investigations into certain matters — and I've listed some of them — surely there has to be an investigation into something as crucial to the justice system.

I think we should bear in mind, and I mean this in all seriousness, that we're not talking about head-hunting. We're talking about an atmosphere that was left after the conclusion of a case, which frankly, in my opinion, was an unsatisfactory way of dealing with it. It involved the chief justice of the appeal court, who was picked up on a wiretap that was applied for and granted specifically for the purpose of getting evidence on an individual who was involved in trafficking in drugs. That's probably the most unusual situation that you can have. It's certainly the most undesirable situation you can have, in terms of our justice system, to have that take place. That's what took place.

It's very unfortunate, as much as the Attorney-General wants to plead in terms of.... He is the person responsible for the administration of law on behalf of the government., Surely he is not going to be in a position to tell this House that he is satisfied with the way the Farris case was handled. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied with it. I spent many, many years in the corrections field, and constantly was seeing people who were at the other end of the system of justice who were not always happy with the way they were dealt with. Sometimes you could say to them: "Well, you're over 2 1, you did what you did, that's the way you get dealt with." Sometimes you spent time telling them on a person-to-person basis that the system is not set up to particularly pin you to the wall, but that it's a system that's for everybody. But I'm not convinced that the application of justice in the Farris case is the kind of application that is available to everybody in this province. I think that's what's important about this.

There should be an inquiry. It was suggested a long time ago. The newspapers tended to take the exotic from it; then when it settled down they started to talk about justice and the difference of the application of justice depending on who was involved. I'm saying to you that this case should not sit the way it is. I find it very difficult to accept the statement by a former Minister of Justice, who said: "Yes, we were having an investigation, but the man resigned. He's not a judge now; therefore we don't continue to investigate." My gosh, I find that very difficult to understand. Is that the way out? Do you just resign and you're no longer responsible? What does that do for the system here?

No, from what the Attorney-General has told us this afternoon, he is aware of the complaint by the private citizen which was made some months ago. He is aware, I presume, of most of the facts surrounding the case. He has presumably read the transcripts, read the letters between Jardine and the defence counsel. Jardine is one of the Crown counsel involved in the case in the early stages.

Let me read you a letter that was sent to Mr. Jardine by Robert Gardner. He wrote it on September 14, 1979:

Crown counsel's office,
Main Street,
Vancouver.

Attention: James W. Jardine, Esq.

Dear Sirs:

Re: Regina v. Wendy King

This is further to our brief discussion the other day and our earlier understanding in this case that if my preliminary application failed I would, in fact, not proceed with the trial, but would plead Wendy King guilty and, of course, due to the dearth of evidence, Mr. Raymond Younge's case would be stayed.

For the interest of the members, Mr. Raymond Younge was the individual, apparently, in connection with whom the application was made to get the wiretap.

He goes on:

So that you do not have a witness problem, and to avoid the voluminous amounts of preparatory work that your office otherwise would have to carry out, this letter is to indicate to you my intention for this coming October.

Naturally, and I know that you can not give me a specific statement in this regard, but I understand that the attitude of the Crown to a jail sentence with respect to Wendy King is not particularly adamant. In other words, it would be helpful upon the dispensation of this case if the Crown were not banging their fists upon the table screaming "jail" — as so frequently happens these days.

Yours truly,
Robert Gardner

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Have you got the letter that responded to that?

MR. LEVI: Well, shortly afterwards the trial took place, and they discussed....

The Attorney-General asked if I had the answer. As I understand it the trial took place, some discussion was had in court, she pleaded guilty, and that was it. There was, I gather, some little to-do. I do have the transcript of the trial. The thing is that there were discussions taking place. I'm not suggesting that those discussions are unusual; I understand that they do take place in these matters. The thing is, what would have been the situation if there had not been a guilty plea? We covered this once before. The Attorney-General was aware, in respect to an investigation which took place in his department, that he was subpoenaed — Mr. Farris was subpoenaed as a witness.

Now I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General that he has within the files of his department — and I'm giving him my opinion, and perhaps the opinion of one or two other people — sufficient difficult information to warrant — and when I say "difficult" I think it is difficult for the party concerned — that this thing should be investigated as to exactly what took place.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What?

MR. LEVI: Well, let me put it to the minister. I don't want to read the transcripts of the wiretaps. You've read it. If you haven't, you should have. If you haven't read that information you should have. If you haven't read the CLEU

[ Page 3959 ]

report, which identified the judge as going to this place that was being wiretapped, you should have done.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The CLEU report?

MR. LEVI: Yes, the CLEU report — you should have. He doesn't know about a CLEU report.

Some of this information was made available to the council. Evidence of Staff Sgt. Harold Howard, who was in charge of a CLEU investigation which involved the lawful interception of the accused — that's Wendy King. Raymond Ewan, alias Younge, who also resides at 1007-945 Jervis Street.... The authorization to intercept was issued on May 24, 1973. That was the first application for the bug. It was obtained by Corporal J.D. Smith.

"On August 9, 1978, I was informed of an intercepted call between Buchanan and another female named Linda. They were discussing a trick with a white-hair named John. On August 16, 1978, at 14:15 hours, the trick, white-haired John, phoned Buchanan (Candice) and he arranged to attend at her apartment. At 14:30 hours, in the company of Detective V. Anderson of CLEU, attended 945 Jervis Street, saw a white-haired elderly male get out of a B.C...PGH-670 brown-coloured Cadillac. The male entered 945 Jervis and was photographed. The registered owner of the car was John Laughlin Farris."

All of that information, I presume, Mr. Attorney-General, is available to you. If it isn't, then you'd better get it and read it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I read it.

MR. LEVI: Oh, you read it. And you're not upset? Obviously not. We've seen your performance on another investigation. He's not upset about the phone call.

It's no crime to solicit over the phone? He's not upset at all. He's not upset that the chief justice of the appeal court is phoning somebody and it's picked on a wiretap. He's riot upset? Well, my God, if justice is in your hands, we're in trouble. You're not upset. I think it's appalling that you can even sit there and say that. Well, I'm upset and there are a lot of people out there who are upset, because what they're looking at, Mr. Chairman, is how justice is administered in this province. That was the point that Mr. Waddell was making when he wrote to the justice minister. The people in Vancouver were wondering who gets handled which way, depending on where you come from. That's nothing new; that's been talked about. You don't always have the cases to demonstrate what goes on, but you have something here. The Attorney-General doesn't agree. We're not overly surprised. After all, we've seen all of the other investigations that he's been handling over the last few months. Now he comes out and says: "There's nothing wrong, you know. The chief justice of the appeal court can be picked up on a wiretap or when we're trying to get a drug trafficker, but that's okay; there is nothing wrong with that." There is nothing wrong with it? I find it incredible.

What kind of situation does a man lay himself open to when he has that kind of position in that kind of situation? All sorts of things flow from that. We know from the report that he was photographed by the police. How do we know that he wasn't photographed by some organized crime people? How do we know what kind of difficult pressures there are? Here we have a case involving a prostitute. Vancouver has been alive with discussions about prostitution for the last two years, with the police being very unhappy about the application of the Criminal Code in terms of the prostitution and some of the appeals that have gone through. Surely that has to be of some concern.

We're talking about a whole aura — a very difficult, if I might put it this way, irresponsible set of circumstances, that the highest judge in this province placed himself in. He's not now a judge; he fell down and ruined his career. Surely you don't just say: "Well, it's all over now — he's not a judge." You have to examine these things. After all, this is information that's available. We know that the thing was closed off. The provincial court judge seals the evidence and that's supposed to be the end of it, notwithstanding the fact that a number of the newspapers in their editorials — newspapers have allegiances all over the place — pointed out the difficulty of leaving this situation where it is. That's what I'm pointing out to the Attorney-General.

Presumably we use different measuring sticks, the Attorney-General and I. If he has gone to the extent of calling in a judge to look at what happened in respect to his deputy or he had some of his senior staff investigate other matters, it seems to me that if he'd been consistent, he would have called in a judge or perhaps, as Mr. Waddell suggested, somebody who is not a judge today. We don't have to go out of the province to look for somebody. We have somebody as honoured and as experienced as the former chief justice of the supreme court, Judge Wilson; we have people who could look at this matter, settle it and give the public an understanding after it's examined. But not to do it, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, is going to leave that lingering doubt as to how justice is applied. If it's been applied fairly, then demonstrate it. But we haven't been able to demonstrate it. The evidence is sealed: there was a plea of guilty; obviously there were discussions about the plea of guilty. That's where we're at.

And all we get from the Attorney-General is that he really is not terribly concerned. He doesn't seem to be concerned about it at all. He probably places it, I would think, as being less important than the Eckardt affair or the Deputy Attorney-General's affair or any of the other 15 or 16 investigations that are going on. We have different measuring sticks. If that is his attitude — that this is nothing wrong, that it can stay as it is — then I think that's extremely unfortunate for justice in this province.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take a very few minutes to raise again the matters which my colleagues and I raised yesterday regarding particularly, I think, four investigations that have been underway in the last year or so surrounding Mickey Moran, the Rigg case, the case of the electoral reform — a euphemistic term for former Judge Eckardt's report to the Legislature on electoral boundary changes — and a number of other cases that are going on. I don't have to enumerate them all; they've been well talked about. I just wanted to quickly make a point to the Attorney-General. He seemed to have difficulty understanding the proposition that the opposition was trying to get across yesterday. Very simply put, it was this: where there are serious political implications of alleged wrongdoing and they touch on someone who is either a political colleague of the Attorney-General or his party, then there is a question about the even-handedness and the impartiality of the investigations that take place, without a slight on anyone's integrity;

[ Page 3960 ]

it's ever been thus. The Attorney-General himself has made speeches in this House noting that that is the case.

In the cases I've cited, the Attorney-General has caused investigations to occur that were altogether internal within his department. Nothing has been provided to the Legislature or to the public of British Columbia, in terms of the evidence that has been taken from witnesses, evidence that we understand was not taken under oath; witnesses were not subjected to cross-examination. The public had to remain ignorant of the extent and the propriety of the total investigation. The Attorney-General brushes off that proposition.

We say that, due to the internal nature of his investigations, the fact is that in each case, despite serious allegations, he has found no basis on which to charge his friends, colleagues and political cohorts.

Well, Mr. Chairman, for the Attorney-General's edification I just want to raise the remarks made this afternoon by his colleague, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). He made the case very well, not with respect to political favouritism in any way, but he was referring to judges. Certainly if the case that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour made against judges sitting in judgment over one of their own.... If that proposition is valid, then I ask the House: is it not 100 percent more valid to say that the propensity to be perhaps less than even-handed is far greater when the political destiny of a party and, indeed, a government is held in the balance?

I want to read the words of the Attorney-General's colleague. They are words that should not be taken lightly. They come from an individual who has been in public life in this nation for many years as both a federal cabinet minister and a provincial cabinet minister.

I quote from the Blues of this morning, page 926:

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.

Mr. Chairman, that is the very phrase that the opposition has been hammering across to the Attorney-General for the last two days. I say that no one has made the case better than the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, his own colleague. Surely if that suspicion in the public mind can exist as to the even-handedness of the learned judges at the very heart of our judicial system, then is there in anyone's mind less of a propensity for the taint of political interference at government level? Of course not. What the member for North Vancouver–Seymour was saying is simply that where there is a question of friends of government.... If there is a question — where a former candidate of the Social Credit Party appears to be getting beneficial treatment before the law — there is one thing and one alone for the Attorney-General to do in honour, and that is, as I and my colleague consistently put forth, to stand back himself and place that investigation before an independent judicial inquiry. That is what's required. That is what the Attorney-General has failed to do. He's kept it in-House — he's kept the evidence secret and he has failed to put the witnesses under oath so they could be cross-examined and all of the evidence elicited. It falls to his colleague, a man of great experience in the public life of this nation, who has demonstrated some honour when his own integrity was called into question and had the good grace to step down....

I believe in the sincerity of that member, Mr. Chairman. I believe, if his words were as serious as I hold them to be, that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour will refuse to support this Attorney-General in terms of voting his salary to him. I don't know how the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, after bearing his breast to this Legislature about his misgivings about the judiciary, can, in good conscience, stand in silence and support an Attorney-General who has performed far more disgracefully, in my view, than any judge in the province of British Columbia. He has deliberately secreted evidence that should, I submit, be the right of the people of British Columbia to view. That could only be provided through a public inquiry, a full scrutiny of the facts and full confidence in the exhaustiveness and completeness of the investigation that took place. I'm going to be watching with great interest, and I hope that my faith in the sincerity of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is not misplaced when I challenge him to stand on his conscience and support the very brave words contained in his speech this afternoon and vote against this Attorney-General's salary, unless he gives an undertaking that all the evidence and investigative practices are tabled in this House and that full judicial inquiries take place in anything of this nature in the future.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to reply to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). But I would first just like to briefly touch upon matters which were raised by the member who has just taken his place and by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

Judges who fall afoul of the law suffer exactly the same consequences as any other citizen. The cases which were touched upon by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour this morning, as I recollect those facts and identify them with particular cases, were dealt with in the same way as any other citizen.

With respect to the fact that the inquiry undertaken by the federal Judicial Council was discontinued because of the resignation of Mr. Farris, may I advise the member that as a result of the concerns about that matter voiced by my predecessor, Mr. Gardom, and by the Deputy Attorney-General, the federal Judicial Council rules have now been revised such that if a judge is under investigation and proposes to resign, his resignation is not accepted until such time as the inquiry has been complete. No one was more concerned about this aspect of the matter than were my predecessor and the deputy. This was drawn to the attention of the appropriate officials in Ottawa who have responsibility for these matters. As a consequence, the procedures have been changed.

In reference to the Wendy King case, the member suggested that there was plea-bargaining. I wish to make it abundantly clear that there was not. There was no suggestion

[ Page 3961 ]

of plea-bargaining in the Wendy King case. He read a letter from defence counsel to one of the Crown counsel associated with that trial. That letter from defence counsel might leave the impression that somehow or other there was some arrangement by which Crown counsel would go easy on the accused in exchange for a plea of guilty. This was not the case.

If the member will reflect on that letter, where the defence counsel spoke about Crown counsel pounding the table, that is precisely what Crown counsel did in that case. The book maintained by the prostitute was introduced in evidence in support of the position being taken by Crown counsel that there should be a jail sentence in that particular instance. Because there had been no contrition and it was obviously a very profitable scheme, he felt that a severe penalty should be imposed.

The sealing of that evidence was a decision made by the judge, not on the recommendation of counsel. But it was an action which was apparently consented to. or agreed to, by defence counsel. That evidence, I'm advised, remains in the records of the court, because there's a question as to whether that evidence belongs to the court or whether it belongs to Miss King. If Miss King wishes it back, then she need only make application for it and the issue can be tried.

With regard to the member's concerns about the former chief justice, Mr. Farris, when I became the Attorney-General and was briefed upon all of the matters that were then outstanding, I was briefed on this particular issue. As a result, inquiries were made of the chief of police of the city of Vancouver to determine whether there was any evidence of criminality whatsoever touching upon Mr. Farris in any of his activities touching upon this matter. The response that I received from the chief of police, Mr. Winterton, was that there was no evidence of criminality.

I also was made aware that during the process — during this entire case — my predecessor also made repeated inquiries with respect to the same matter. Therefore, with respect to the evidence in the wiretap, which I have seen, and which was, of course, made available by defence counsel, publicly.... It wouldn't otherwise be public. Based on that evidence, careful examination was made by the police authorities in consultation with Crown counsel, and the laying of charges was not indicated.

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman, we know more now than we did when we started. That's interesting. I just wanted to go over one thing with the minister. He said that his predecessor and he himself were concerned about the procedures which flow from the federal Judicial Council, in which up until they had been changed — and he said that those procedures have now been changed — but up till the time of the case we are dealing with, the information we got from Senator Jacques Flynn was that once a judge resigns, the matter is closed.

Presumably that was the case with Mr. Farris; the matter was closed. I put it to the Attorney-General before that if the regulations had been changed at that particular time, then presumably the investigation would have gone to the end. I said to him earlier that what we are calling for here is an investigation of the matter by a judge. That investigation did not take place. He says that his predecessor was concerned that it didn't and he was concerned that it didn't; but he didn't institute an investigation by a judge, which he could have done. You could have had your own independent inquiry and concluded this matter, but you didn't. If you were concerned — and I have no doubt that you and your predecessor were concerned — then the logical thing to flow from that concern was to have an inquiry.

I don't want to get into a debate with the Attorney-General about the evidence as to whether there was a crime committed or not. We've had that time and time again in this House. We're not simply talking about the issue of a crime. I laid out all the circumstances of this particular affair. The difficulty that members of the public have in accepting.... Did you have sealed evidence? There was no inquiry, nothing.

You went to a great extent to investigate a provincial court judge through the Judicial Council. If you were that concerned about that judge.... You were concerned about the case involving the judge in question, but you did nothing about it. There should have been an inquiry, and there wasn't. That is the great tragedy in this thing. I believe it when you say that you and your predecessor were concerned, but you did nothing about it.

We're not talking about criminal offences. We're talking about a matter of behaviour. It was a difficult situation the chief justice of this province could have put himself into. You don't know that, because you did not have an inquiry. All of the ingredients for that kind of situation were there.

I frankly say, Mr. Chairman, that it was irresponsible for the minister's predecessor not to order an inquiry. There should have been an inquiry. That's not difficult to do in this province. They have the power to approach either a judge — and the justices of the supreme court are paid for that kind of inquiry — or someone who is retired. There are many able judges who could have done that. They didn't do that.

So it's no good resting his case on the fact that there was not enough evidence for criminal offence. We're not talking about that. We're talking about the great difficulty of accepting that this is the kind of situation that existed with the chief judge of the province — a prostitute on one end of the line and a drug trafficker on the other. Now if that doesn't merit an inquiry. then I don't know what does. Because that was the situation. We're not now talking about crime, we're talking about standards of behaviour. That should have been looked at, and it wasn't.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the debate we've had has been a serious one. The Attorney-General has been in office since last November, and while it is too soon to judge. In man), respects it's a well-administered department. Yet on seven counts this Attorney-General has failed in fulfilling the high obligations of that particular office that he holds. I'm not going to repeat too much of the debate, but I want to list and summarize those seven counts on which we say that the Attorney-General has failed.

The members will recall that following an allegation that the Deputy Attorney-General had phoned a judge — Judge Govan — the Attorney-General acted with the appointment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Seaton to look into what was a reasonably grave allegation. Mr. Justice Seaton made his report. He heard evidence and it was an open, independent inquiry. He found at that time — I'm just reciting history — that the Deputy Attorney-General had been indiscreet. That inquiry was properly handled.

Having that finding before him, the Attorney-General, shortly thereafter, was confronted with a graver allegation with respect to his deputy, detailed in a letter from Bruce

[ Page 3962 ]

Donald, the prosecutor of the city of Vancouver. It was a graver suggestion of interference, yet here we had the beginning of the Attorney-General's running away from an independent judicial inquiry and contenting himself with a secret investigation by his own department, with perhaps some outside help from other lawyers which neither the Legislature nor the people would be allowed to see. The result was that we had a civil case but no independent inquiry, on a matter which in fairness to the deputy as well as in justice to the public should at once have been referred to a supreme court judge or a judge of the court of appeal, as the less grave matter had been some months earlier. So that was failure number one by the Attorney-General to do his duty in an independent way.

The second case involved the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). In this case the  Attorney-General was confronted by a routine decision of regional Crown counsel to proceed with what would have been a relatively minor charge against the hon. member. Why did that matter come to Victoria at all? Why did not Victoria let the law take its course? There was no reason for that matter to have been elevated to Victoria, but having been elevated to Victoria the Attorney-General should have been apprised of it. It is very strange that he was not apprised of something that was in the daily newspapers, and in that case he should have exercised his decision. But his attitude toward that case was see no evil, hear no evil, and he ducked his responsibility in making the decision. There was a conflict between the police officers recommending that a charge be laid. There was the recommendation of regional Crown counsel that the charge be laid, and the Attorney-General carefully absented himself from the decision and said, in effect, to his department: "Will no one rid me of this worrisome charge?" Well, politically that may have appeared to the Attorney-General to be safe ground, but it was a dereliction of his duty. Following the publication of the decision by the assistant deputy minister that nothing more should be done with respect to this case the Attorney-General announced to the press, "I agree it seems to be the proper decision," notwithstanding that the Attorney-General at that time had not read the RCMP reports and had not read the recommendation of Crown counsel, and that was misleading.

The third count in the indictment relates to the Rigg case. A young man had personal attention directed toward his case by the Attorney-General's ministry in Victoria. The Attorney-General saw nothing unusual about this, but there are thousands of other young people throughout the province of British Columbia who are in difficulties with the criminal law who do not get the opportunity to have their case receive personal attention in Victoria by the Attorney-General's ministry. It was interference in a personal case on behalf of one person. The interference was very grave indeed, because the regional Crown counsel, fully within his rights, was proceeding with an appeal, and two days before the appeal was to be heard the Attorney-General's ministry ordered that that appeal be dropped. That was not letting the law take its course. That was not providing for an equal administration of the law with respect to all of the people who get into difficulty with it.

On the fourth count, the Attorney-General has given his defence with respect to the Moran case. He has, in effect, absolved his ministry of any suggestion that there was favouritism in that case, or that he should not have taken some action. He has made a quibbling point with respect to what was said by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), by saying: "Well, the evidence you are quoting from the transcript of the proceedings, which I think were in Grand Forks, was merely statement of counsel." But it was a statement of Crown counsel — your own counsel — telling the court what evidence was available to that Crown counsel to be produced if necessary.

That evidence showed clear evidence of drinking while driving. Crown counsel, Mr. Moffatt, quoted the evidence of two RCMP officers and the witness to the scene. The evidence they gave as to speech, appearance, liquor in the car, walking and the condition of the eyes all pointed to drinking while driving. Yet in the face of that the Crown had dropped both charges relating to drinking driving, which carry mandatory penalties, and had instead substituted a charge which actually did not fit the circumstances at all, to which the accused pleaded guilty, and to which Crown counsel acceded that there should be an absolute discharge. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the rule for all of the people in the province of British Columbia who drive. It wasn't the case of whether there was proof of impaired driving; it was the far lesser degree of proof required to obligate an accused to take the breathalyser. If there is any suspicion of liquor, all of the other citizens of British Columbia have to take the breathalyser when asked to do so by an officer of the law.

MR. BARRETT: And if you don't take it, what happens?

MR. MACDONALD: What happens? You're charged.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If there are reasonable grounds.

MR. BARRETT: And if there are reasonable grounds, how many people don't get charged?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Attorney-General, you're backing away from your responsibilities.

MR. BARRETT: You're so phony, it's unbelievable.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all the members take their seats.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chairman has risen. Will all hon. members please come to order.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word "phony." Will the member so withdraw?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word "phony." I ask the Attorney-General to withdraw the same word.

[ Page 3963 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, likewise I withdraw the word "phony."

MR. BARRETT: You may not be phony, but you're sure something else.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You're something else too!

MR. BARRETT: That makes two of us, but at least I'm consistent! I have never walked across the floor; I have never done to my principles what you have.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Leader of the Opposition please take his seat. Hon. member, if there are any more interruptions, I will find them grossly disorderly and ask members to withdraw from the chamber. We're on vote 21, and once again I recognize the hon. second member for Vancouver East.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Beauchesne's fourth edition, pages 110-111, says as follows:

Item No. 3: "Since 1958 it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions..." and it goes on down the page, over to the next page; there are four references that "phony" is a parliamentary expression, and based upon Beauchesne's fourth edition and that citation I call the Attorney-General phony.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have Beauchesne's fourth edition open to page 111 and at no place do I find that. I will tell the hon. member that it is quite out of order to rise on a point of order and improperly cite a parliamentary journal.

MR. HOWARD: The error was mine, Mr. Chairman. It's Beauchesne's fifth edition which says "phony" is okay, and I repeat it according to Beauchesne's fifth edition. It is a parliamentary expression. If you're going to rely on Beauchesne, rely on the latest issue of Beauchesne.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, both withdrawals have been made; the Chair is satisfied. The underlying rule is parliamentary language and courtesy.

MR. MACDONALD: What we have seen — and I'm going to be serious about this — is the Attorney-General of British Columbia approbate a situation in the Kootenays where an unfortunate accused, with very visible evidence of drinking, and with reliable witnesses at hand ready to back up that evidence, was allowed.... RCMP constables were available and the witness at the accident was available. Nevertheless, the late Mr. Moran was allowed to get away with refusal to blow the breathalyser. The Attorney-General knows the law perfectly well. Very slight evidence of drinking is required to obligate the person concerned to take the breathalyser test. Following that, a deal was clearly made between the Crown and the accused. In fact, Mr. Moffat said he sat up all night discussing this with the other lawyer for the defence. A deal was made whereby the Crown would lie doggo and drop both the drinking charges, and the accused went free. This was a case of justice not depending on what Mr. Moran did, but depending upon who he was. What we find today is that that situation, which would lead to drinking-driving on our roads running rife in this province if it applied to other motorists, is approbated by the Attorney-General. It's a dereliction of duty.

Mr. Chairman, the fifth count that I make refers to the phony letters. I appreciate that the Attorney-General has found that they did constitute forgery. I appreciate that he has — and he made a very great political impression when he did so — defined those letters as being cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible. Yet there was an opportunity for the Attorney-General of British Columbia to get to the bottom of that matter, and he refused to do that. He said that he could not determine who had signed any of the forged letters — which is a criminal offence. If he did not go down the hall to the caucus research office or to the Premier's office, because Mr. Grigg worked in the Premier's office.... If he wanted to get to the bottom of that, and he wasn't allowing his politics to get mixed up with his administration of justice; and if he did not want to protect his political colleagues and his friends, and to protect the party that has put him in the seat that he now occupies; if he was prepared to do his duty, he would have had an inquiry. The witnesses would have been summoned; there would have been a judge. It would have been very easy indeed to unravel the whole business. But that was something the Attorney-General of British Columbia was determined should not happen.

In respect of the sixth count, Mr. Chairman, it relates to the question of the false return of election expenses. It relates to the $60,000 in unreceipted disbursements in the form of thousand-dollar bills that were spent by people associated with the Premier's office.

This was not an innocent mistake, when the incorrect return was filed. The mistake arose because the Premier, contrary to the Election Act, was maintaining separate campaign funds in order to maintain his support, presumably within the Social Credit Party, through secret trust funds in his own office, a situation which irresistibly leads to the conclusion that someone out there would think they have bought that office. It is a most serious thing in a parliamentary democracy for campaign funds to be administered right out of the Premier's office. So it was not an innocent mistake by somebody failing to file their election expenses within 60 days.

Again, if this Attorney-General was not only willing to think in terms of narrow criminal charges but in terms of his oath of obligation to uphold public morality as well, he would have had a full inquiry into the secret funds. There would then be no question of hiding behind the explanation that he doesn't know who the central committee of the Social Credit Party is. It would have been spelled out, Mr. Chairman, very, very clearly by a judge of the supreme court, or the court of appeal following an inquiry. But that's the kind of thing that this Attorney-General was determined should be covered up, along with the other matters that I have mentioned. Of course, there would be no inquiry — an internal investigation that never sees the light of day.

Mr. Chairman, the seventh count relates to the Eckardt commission. The Attorney-General, as I mentioned the other day, made the remark that to make an incomplete report with respect to that matter to the House, would be to "demean my

[ Page 3964 ]

office." But, Mr. Chairman, the report is incomplete. It is a travesty of anything that one might think of in terms of natural justice. Again the Attorney-General acted with the interests of his political colleagues and his own political fortunes in mind rather than the obligation of his office. Secret evidence, a narrow inquiry not going back more than two or three days — very cute, very clever and very great in terms of hiding the truth — and this filtered-down evidence that is unsworn, unsubstantiated and false.... When there's a witness who deposes to the contrary, he's not even mentioned in the report, like Patterson, the chief electoral officer, as just one example.

This kind of report is such a travesty of justice that it demeans the Attorney-General and the office he holds. If the Attorney-General was liable to a writ of court for his conduct in terms of that inquiry, it would be certiorari, to use the proper legal word, in no time flat by any court in the land as being an absolute travesty of the judicial system we all know.

There has been no change of heart on behalf of that Attorney-General. Where the political interests of the Social Credit Party are involved, the rule of law stops short. It isn't funny. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the Attorney-General has not fulfilled the oath of his office, I move that vote 21 be reduced by the sum of $7 for each of the accounts I have detailed in my remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I find the amendment out of order. I quote from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition: "The reduction of a grant or item must be by a substantial and not a trifling amount, nor may a series of motions be made upon the same grant, raising substantially the same issue." The Chair would be prepared to accept $1, which is done as a matter of tradition in this House.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you've found the Attorney-General guilty on one count anyhow by accepting one buck. I checked. I asked the Clerks at the Table about this matter and I was told that pursuant to the rules it would either have to be "$1" or "to $1" one or the other, but nothing in between.

I draw your attention to votes and proceedings in the Journals of this House, April 29, 1976, page 73 thereof. Pursuant to an order the House again resolved itself into Committee of Supply, went into committee, dealt with a number of votes dealing with the Department of Finance, etc., etc. The committee rose and reported and "the Chairman further reported that a division on an amendment moved by Mr. Lauk as follows: that vote 69 be reduced from $40 million to the sum of 40 cents...." Other than a dollar. That was accepted at that time. That's a tradition of this House, and I submit that you must accept this motion as failing in exactly the same category.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. member. Would you mind repeating the citation in the documentation of the debate?

MR. HOWARD: It's the Journals of the Legislative Assembly, British Columbia, April 29, 1976, page 73. The reference is that pursuant to an order the House resolved itself into Committee of Supply, and the vote that was accepted then in committee was that vote 69, which was related to the Department of Finance, be reduced from $40 million to the sum of 40 cents. The committee recommended that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House, and by leave of the House it was so recorded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the tradition of this House has been that a salary vote be reduced by $1 or to a sum of $1. That has been the tradition of the House and I will stand by my ruling that this motion is out of order.

MR. HOWARD: Obviously that ruling, which I won't comment upon, must be challenged.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS 25

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 21 be reduced by the sum of $1.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

[ Page 3965 ]

NAYS — 28

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 21 approved.

On vote 22: administration and support, $4,538,565.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to convey a sad message to the members of the Legislative Assembly. About an hour ago we were advised of the death of Earle Westwood, a former member of this Legislative Assembly. He was representing the constituency of Nanaimo and the Islands. He was first elected in September 1956 and re-elected in 1960. He served as the Minister of Trade and Industry, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, as well as the Minister of Commercial Transport during his political career. He also represented British Columbia in London for four years as the agent-general. I'm sure all members would join me in requesting you, Mr. Speaker, to convey the most sincere sympathies to the family of Mr. Westwood and to his many friends in the province. We've certainly lost a most able representative of our province and a person who dedicated a great deal of his life to public life in the interests of the citizens of B.C.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, and as the representative for Nanaimo, I'd like to join in that expression of condolences to the family. He served not only as a member of this House and in England, but also for several years as the mayor of Nanaimo. He had a very long public life in the community.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The message shall be undertaken by the Chair on behalf of the members.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved,

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.