[ Page 6353 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Notaries Act (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 6353

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Leggatt –– 6353

Pulping of sawlogs. Mr. King –– 6353

WCB inquiry. Ms. Sanford –– 6353

Relations with Alaska under treaty of Washington. Mr. Passarell –– 6354

Fate of roundhouse at B.C. Place site. Mr. Barnes –– 6354

Urea formaldehyde insulation. Mr. Hall –– 6354

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

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6355

Mr. Lorimer

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Davis

Mr. Leggatt

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Levi

Tabling Documents

Urban Transit Authority annual report and financial statements for the year ending

March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6376

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to allow some time for the treasury benches to fill up for question period, I wonder if we couldn't wait a couple of minutes as the hon. members come into the House.

MR. RITCHIE: I wish leave to make an introduction things moved rather rapidly forward.

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm very pleased to welcome to the House today Alec and Madeleine Ward of Shynewood, near Nanaimo. I'm particularly pleased to meet these folks, because they are the parents of my secretary. I'd like to say they have done an excellent job of raising their daughter; she's just a wonderful person and a wonderful secretary to me. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a friend of mine, Mr. Blane Lopes from Vancouver, along with two of his friends from Victoria, Greg Morley and Usha Viswanthan. I hope they're enjoying themselves on Mr. Lopes's first visit to Victoria.

Introduction of Bills

NOTARIES ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Williams, Bill 28, Notaries Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Recently Mr. Basford, who is now the B.C. coal coordinator, stated that the cost of financing in the northeast coal deal could become so high as to be prohibitive. Given the massive public expenditure now taking place in the northeast, can the minister advise the House why he has not required performance bonds in respect to both Teck and Denison on this project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question I would like to assure the House that the people and the taxpayers of British Columbia will be fully protected in northeast coal.

MR. LEGGATT: Given the fact that this year alone it's expected the expenditure should run to about $140 million of the taxpayers' money, and given the fact that interest rates continue to be at a level that the coal coordinator feels they're just about at the breaking point, what assurance can this minister give the House that these massive amounts of tax dollars will be expended for nothing if the companies back out and don't fulfil their side of the commitment? Why are we putting up money when they aren't, and we still haven't got a performance bond?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, it's amazing that he'd even be interested in this project, since the party he's speaking for wants to see this great economic development project closed down immediately. I would like to again assure the House that the taxpayers' expenditures will be fully protected.

PULPING OF SAWLOGS

MR. KING: My question is to the Minister of Forests. The minister has received quite a number of complaints over the last six months — perhaps over the last year — regarding the pulping of good saw logs. In view of a recent survey conducted by the Forest Service which showed that almost half the logs held for pulp booms were of prime sawlog quality, can the minister advise whether he has decided to act on this information by enforcing section 34(l) of the Forest Act to ensure that timber is utilized for its highest end product?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I imagine that the member is referring to a study released some three or four months ago — not quite recently — in which it was indicated that a good percentage of the logs destined for pulpmills were in category 3. Depending upon the economics of the lumber market at the time, that classification can or cannot be sawlogs. In my opinion, there are too many logs that could in normal times be used for sawing which are going to pulpmills. We are continuing to work with the industry to attempt to overcome this apparent abuse of sawlogs.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary question. As I indicated, the minister has the authority under section 34(l) of the Forest Act. I wonder if he could expand on what he means by "working with the industry," rather than enforcing the powers which he has under his jurisdiction to ensure that this wasteful practice ceases.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The section of the act to which the member refers.... Of course, we wish to get the best use and the best value from the logs. Chipping a log when there is a low market for lumber.... That particular log may be able to produce only low-quality lumber, and it may be unsaleable at times. In times like that chipping is perhaps the best use of the log.

WCB INQUIRY

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Premier, if I could just have his attention. We are informed that at a meeting with the United Injured and Disabled Workers Association the Premier promised an inquiry into the Workers' Compensation Board, Will the Premier confirm that he made such a promise?

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

MS. SANFORD: Can the Premier inform the House then whether his government has decided that there will be no inquiry?

[ Page 6354 ]

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

MS. SANFORD: Can the Premier confirm that he promised to meet with the Minister of Labour to discuss the formation of some sort of inquiry into the Workers' Compensation Board?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can confirm that I said I would discuss the matter with the Minister of Labour.

MS. SANFORD: To the Minister of Labour: can the minister tell the House whether or not he has been contacted by the Premier regarding the setting up of an inquiry into the WCB?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are a number of items which are the subject of discussion between myself and the Premier.

MS. SANFORD: Obviously the Premier doesn't want the minister to answer that question. I based that statement on the fact that he seems to be informing him what to say. Could the Minister of Labour answer the following question: has he decided to hold an inquiry into the Workers' Compensation Board?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: I have a final question. Can the minister confirm that he promised the representatives of the United Injured and Disabled Workers Association that he would meet with them in about a month's time? That meeting with the Minister of Labour took place almost a month ago now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't recall making any statement to the group which visited the Legislature approximately a month ago. I met with them and their leader, Mr. Reid, in my office for about three-quarters of an hour or an hour. I never made any confirmation about meeting with them at a later time.

RELATIONS WITH ALASKA
UNDER TREATY OF WASHINGTON

MR. PASSARELL: Can the Premier advise whether B.C. has initiated Canada-United States talks concerning article 26 of the Treaty of Washington, 1871, and the right of both nations to free navigation of the Stikine-Iskut river system?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I can't confirm it.

MR. PASSARELL: In view of the joint resolution of the Alaska Legislature requesting the direct personal involvement of President Reagan and Secretary of State Haig, has the Premier made similar overtures to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the member for Atlin by now is familiar with the way American politics work. The executive branch of their government deals with the executive branch of our government. In that case it would be Governor Hammond, with whom the member is quite familiar, who would deal with our government, and not resolutions of one of their various Houses. We are constantly in touch with Governor Hammond on a number of issues. For the most part, British Columbia and Alaska have had good relations, and very seldom are unsettled by things reported or written in newspaper columns in this province.

MR. PASSARELL: Has the B.C. government formulated a position with respect to the Treaty of Washington? If so, what is it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's a question of future policy. I'll take it as notice.

FATE OF ROUNDHOUSE AT B.C. PLACE SITE

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. The B.C.-Yukon regional council of Heritage Canada has described the CPR roundhouse on Vancouver's False Creek as "one of the most significant historic sites, both architecturally and historically, in western Canada." Can the Provincial Secretary confirm that the B.C. Heritage Trust requested that he ensure that an independent and neutral assessment of the site be undertaken before B.C. Place destroys the buildings?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you going to file that document you're reading from?

MR. BARNES: I like the good humour, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister please respond?

HON MR. WOLFE: I was going to ask the member to read his question again, but in any event, yes, I have been in touch with the Heritage Trust chairman on a number of occasions regarding this matter. I've visited the site of the CPR roundhouse myself, and I think I indicated in this House during my estimates that nothing was going to take place with regard to that particular matter before the end of the year. I've had discussions with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) on this question, and I've indicated to the Trust that a considerable facilities study has been undertaken by B.C. Place authorities. The results of that information are going to be supplied to all interested parties including my ministry. I believe it's almost available at this time. Following that a decision will be made in terms of the heritage aspects and action that might be taken by my ministry.

MR. BARNES: A supplementary question. Could the Provincial Secretary indicate if there are any other independent assessors or authorities besides B.C. Place determining the heritage value of the roundhouse.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Not at this stage. Three studies have been undertaken. They're all independent, but the studies I think the member is referring to have not been undertaken at this stage.

UREA FORMALDEHYDE INSULATION

MR. HALL: I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, who's been neglected a little this session. Given the disaster that's befallen B.C. residents as a result of the installation of urea formaldehyde insulation, can the minister advise whether he has proposed to the federal government any cost-sharing arrangements to remove this dangerous substance from the affected homes of British Columbians, or have it replaced?

[ Page 6355 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. HALL: Supplementary. I take it that completes the minister's legislative program for this session.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes. [Laughter.]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 22: minister's office, $150,500.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss a little further the question of the Eckardt commission report and the complaints from a number of people to the ombudsman that this report was a gerrymander and dishonest. Prior to that time the Attorney-General had made certain in-house investigations but refused to have an exterior examination of these allegations of gerrymandering and political influence in a commission financed by the public of the province. Now the Attorney-General has refused to give the documents and the information he has obtained to the ombudsman. I suggest he has a cosmetic reason for not doing so. The ombudsman states in his report that he had more problems with this division than with any other branch of government. And he goes on to say....

The ombudsman's suggestion that there could have been improper interference or attempted interference is offensive in the extreme, according to a senior official of that ministry. I would say that it indicates a severe case of arrogance on the part of the ministry and the senior official of that ministry to take offence at the ombudsman trying to carry out his duties as dictated by this Legislature.

The Attorney-General's predecessor, the now Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), did carry out some public inquiries. There was the question of whether or not there was undue influence on Judge Govan, and Mr. Justice Seaton, I believe, brought down a report. It was an outside review. However, this Attorney-General has failed to have any outside reviews and has had internal investigations into every matter that has come before him, in order that the Social Credit government could be protected. I suggest that this internal review of the Eckardt report was to protect the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). There is also the internal review of the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who thanked the Attorney-General and said he appreciated the protection that he had received from him.

Many of us in this House listened to the Attorney-General when he was a member of the opposition. He used to give great speeches of righteousness — what was right and what was wrong — and he would have been the first to oppose the steps taken by the Attorney-General today. I suggest that the Attorney-General would like to have had external reviews of the matters that have been mentioned today, but the Premier wouldn't let him. He was put into the position of Attorney General for the purpose of stonewalling all matters that might be an embarrassment to the government — and he has done that, He has done that consistently, knowing full well in his own heart and mind that he is not fulfilling the trust given to him by the position of Attorney- General of this province. It's not now a question of overwork in the Attorney-General's ministry. The Attorney- General is probably the smallest ministry in government today, and 90 percent of the work formerly carried out in that ministry has been removed. It's a simple ministry; it's a ministry that could be handled very well by this minister.

I am very disappointed with this minister. In my opinion, he's been a likable minister, a likable and very able person who could do a real job in the ministry which he now represents. But he has failed miserably. He hasn't done those things that he knows he ought to have done, and he is now stonewalling the ombudsman to prevent him from doing the work and carrying out the responsibilities for which he was appointed with great fanfare by this government. He is merely the servant of the administration of justice; he's not the master, and he is subject to the law the same as anyone else. The question of even-handed justice in this province is in doubt because of the failure of this Attorney-General to carry out his responsibilities in the way in which I believe he should. I'm sure it's the way that the Attorney-General himself knows it should be done. I often wonder whether the former Attorney-General was removed because he was carrying out outside interviews or investigations into problems that have arisen — whether they brought in another Attorney General who agreed to stonewall all investigation in these areas. It's a very disappointing thing to see that an individual who has been held in high esteem has, in my opinion, lowered the quality of the position of Attorney-General in this province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to some of the matters which have been the subject of discussion, particularly those raised by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon regarding his unwarranted assumptions respecting the manner in which I have discharged my responsibility as the Attorney-General. What the member seems to be unable to understand with respect to the matter the ombudsman has under review is that nothing is standing in the way of the ombudsman discharging his responsibility. He is aware of the complaint which is before him and of the scope of the investigation which he must undertake, and he has, as I have said before, the full scope to examine all matters dealing with that particular subject. Indeed, he has greater scope than was available to me and to the officials of my ministry, who were involved in a matter of considerably narrower ambit.

With respect to other matters the member has referred to as being internal inquiries, he should be fully aware that one was a police investigation and that the Attorney-General does not interfere in police investigations — coupled with advice from Crown counsel and from the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General in charge of the criminal justice division. It is a matter which did not and should not property come to the attention of the Attorney-General unless it was impossible to resolve the matter at the level of the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, who, as I have said on, previous occasions, was a man of long experience with government, and one whose stature in the field of criminal law has never before been called into question.

There was another matter taken under consideration by me; it dealt with a personnel matter within the ministry, and it

[ Page 6356 ]

was quite appropriate that it be dealt with as personnel matters are — with a thorough examination of the performance of a government official. That was reported upon at length to this House.

The Attorney-General of this province or any other jurisdiction in our system has an onerous responsibility based upon the history and traditions of the office, but also upon the law. I have, throughout this matter and in all matters coming before me in my capacity as Attorney-General adhered to those strict requirements. It is only in that way, Mr. Member, that one can be assured that justice is even-handedly dealt with by the Attorney-General to ensure that all citizens, no matter what their station in life, are dealt with in the same manner.

While I am on my feet, I would like to respond to some important matters which were raised yesterday by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and again this morning by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). Yesterday the member for Dewdney very properly placed before this committee his concern about the evidence of increasing consumption of alcohol, which he described as being of epidemic proportion among young persons — those persons who are under-age. He offered, by way of suggestion, certain changes which might be introduced in regulation regarding the sale of alcohol in this province. I don't wish to touch upon those because they fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). Offences of that nature, and the remedy for those offences, are something which does fall within the responsibility of the Attorney-General. There is no question that we must look with increasing seriousness at the freedom with which adult persons make alcoholic beverages — and indeed other chemical substances — available to young people. This is a matter of concern with regard to the proposal of the federal government to, as they term it, decriminalize the use of marijuana, even though there is growing evidence that the use of marijuana is having serious medical results, both physically and mentally. The continued use of that substance is proving to hold disaster.

I believe it is a mistake for any government within its jurisdiction to carelessly make laws which tend to free the availability of these substances. I can assure the member that with respect to the use of alcohol — its availability being one which falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial government — steps are being taken to ensure that its widespread use among young people will be limited. The member will find that during this session the government will be placing before this House some amendments to legislation which we hope will go a significant way to contributing to the law enforcement potential which will serve to reduce, if not eliminate, some of the problems associated with underage drinking.

It is a concern which all of society must have, because it leads into other areas. I refer now to the one which was raised by the member for Omineca this morning: the matter of carnage on our highways. After two years of intensive work by the motor-vehicle task force, recommendations were placed before the government for changes in our laws with respect to the operation of motor vehicles. The task force inquiry into motor-vehicle accidents and their causes clearly showed that the consumption of alcohol was a continuing and growing problem, the results of which are largely responsible for the carnage on our highways — the significant loss of life, personal injury and the tremendous financial toll which befalls each of those personal damage results. As a consequence, the member for Omineca will know that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), together with the Attorney-General and their respective staffs, has undertaken a major task to change the motor vehicle laws of this province. Again, it is anticipated that in this session we will place before this House legislation which will be a marked change in the way in which motor-vehicle laws have been enforced.

Several years ago it was thought that if penalties for individual infractions were reduced, the drivers of this province would respond. It was though that having points recorded against drivers' licences with the right to drive being placed in jeopardy would have the effect of encouraging better driving habits and better personal habits on the part of those who operate motor vehicles in this province. It is clear now that the change from the previous approach of penalizing for infractions has not worked in this province or in other jurisdictions where it has been attempted. Therefore we will be placing before this House legislation which will reverse the earlier decision. We will face the drivers of this province with the clear choice: either you improve your driving habits and driving skills and take care with respect to your physical and mental condition when you are driving motor vehicles or you will see yourself subjected to significant financial penalties plus, in some cases, penalties which will result in your being sentenced to an appropriate corrections facility.

This will be a significant change. We appreciate that it will be some time before the driving public in British Columbia is fully accustomed to the new law. As a consequence, I can assure the members that following introduction there will be a major campaign so that no driver in this province will be able to say that he is not aware of the change in the law, or indeed that he has not been given the opportunity to adjust his driving habits in such a way as to reduce the incidence of apprehension and the resulting points which are presently being accumulated against driving records. We want to produce safe highways and safe users of highways. It is not our desire to punish. It is our desire merely to end, if possible — to reduce, certainly — the unfortunate consequences of the behaviour of unthinking persons on our highways today.

I think that leads me, appropriately, into the second matter raised by the member for Omineca this morning. He made reference to a newspaper editorial and story which appeared this morning in the Province. The story was headlined: "Courts are Failing to Protect Society." That story by a recently retired judge provides one man's view of the functioning of the system of criminal justice in this province. It is a view which cannot be ignored. The learned judge spent, as he points out, about 20 years on the bench of this province. He had the opportunity to make his own assessment of the direction in which society and the courts have been moving. That includes not only the judiciary, but also Crown counsel and others who have the responsibility of bringing cases before the courts.

Whether one agrees with the learned judge's views or not, they are to be taken fully into account in determining what the appropriate course of action is if society is to be protected. The courts do have a responsibility. As Attorney-General, it will be my role to ensure that the traditional criminal justice system continues to discharge its responsibility against those persons who choose to adopt standards of conduct which society does not accept and those people who choose to conduct themselves outside the norms which society consid-

[ Page 6357 ]

ers appropriate. If society is to survive, they surely must be dealt with in the criminal justice system.

The traditional criminal justice system is one which requires, first of all, a victim and then apprehension, trial, conviction and punishment. It is a system which, by its very nature, is reactive. First, the event must take place. I think, therefore, that the member should recognize that something else is taking place in this province as a result of the concern of people in our communities as to whether or not the traditional criminal justice system is in itself sufficient. Therefore we are finding greater interest on the part of citizens throughout all communities in British Columbia in the aspects of crime prevention. This is most particularly so in the matter of those persons who are juveniles or are just over the age of being juveniles, but it is among older people as well.

What is becoming clear is that it isn't sufficient to say that the criminal justice system or the courts must protect society. It is, however, clear that society itself has a responsibility to discharge in ensuring that young people, in particular, do not begin to move in the direction of conduct which society does not accept as the norm. Society itself has a role. It is interesting to note that in increasing numbers the members of our communities are prepared to commit themselves to enterprises which will ensure that crime is prevented in the first instance. This necessitates some careful re-examination of the way in which society itself functions, a return to individual self-responsibility, a return to a concern for the family unit and the role which it may play in the development of acceptable behaviour standards. That applies not only in the normal crimes of breaking and entering and the like, and not only with regard to vandalism — which is of concern throughout all of our communities — but also the way you operate your motor vehicle, and indeed the way young persons are able to acquire and use alcohol and other chemical substances which are finding their way into regular use in our communities, in particular by the young.

Society has a responsibility. We find that the communities, as I indicated, are willing to take the responsibility. As a consequence, the Ministry of Attorney-General, together with the Solicitor-General of Canada, has established programs for the creation of crime prevention committees in various communities throughout the province so that the particular problem in that community can be identified. Not only government, law enforcement agencies and correction branch people, but those in our schools, community centres, local government and service clubs — people who are generally interested in the future of their communities — can participate in this worthwhile activity. The activity is not reactive in the sense that the traditional criminal justice system is, but it is pro-active. It begins at the root of the problem, identifies in the particular community where that root may be and attempts to search out solutions which will ensure that young people, in particular, do not find their way into conduct which will surely lead them into the criminal justice system with all of the problems that that system can create for them.

At the same time I wish to assure the members — particularly the member for Omineca — that the Ministry of Attorney-General, in its role in the criminal justice system, is making every effort to ensure that society is protected from those persons who, in spite of all the efforts that may be made, still are prepared to adopt conduct which is not up to standard.

I might say that there has been criticism of the way in which the judiciary deals with matters which come before it. This is not a criticism which is easily levelled, and I don't level it in these circumstances. The courts must deal with matters as they come before them. They must consider in their wisdom and in their independence what the penalties should be for infractions of our laws. Courts, however, do respond to the initiatives, dictates and standards of our society. I believe that as it becomes increasingly clear from the actions of our citizens that there must be changes in conduct, the courts will follow that lead.

MR. LORIMER: On just one more matter, the Attorney General talked about agreeing that even-handed justice is necessary. Because of that, I'm wondering why there hasn't been a public inquiry into the Eckardt commission matter and the serious allegations of political interference with that particular report. If there was even-handed justice in this province, I suggest, there would be a public inquiry into this whole matter.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I can only see two reasons for which there wouldn't be a public inquiry. One of them is that the Premier may well have directed the Attorney-General not to have one, and the Attorney-General knuckled under to the Premier's decision. The second one is that the Attorney-General has some knowledge, after his internal look at the matter, that it would be a very damaging thing to have an inquiry — damaging to his colleagues and damaging to his party. I think it's as simple as that. There will not be a public inquiry, because one of those two matters has come about. I think that the Attorney-General knows full well that if he is going to be respected in his position as Attorney-General and going to keep up the high name of that office, a public inquiry is absolutely essential.

MRS. DAILLY: First of all, I want to applaud the Attorney-General for his remarks on the bill to be introduced here to do with the carnage on our highways and drinking drivers. I'm sure that all of us are looking forward to some legislation which will perhaps do something to alleviate that situation.

We cannot applaud the Attorney-General for his handling of a number of inquiries and problems that have been brought to his attention either through the public or the opposition, and lately even through the office of the ombudsman. No applause is merited there. As a matter of fact, I am greatly disappointed in the Attorney-General of this province, because I can recall when he was a member of the opposition many years ago. We both sat in here. He was always a person who believed in the openness of government — at least, that's what he said on this side of the House — and injustice being done and in full public inquiry.

Since he has become Attorney-General and been faced with Lettergate, the Eckardt commission problem and Gracie's Finger, apparently that Attorney-General has seen fit to put his concerns about his own cabinet colleagues over his concerns about proper justice being done in this province. I have found this very disappointing. But more than being disappointed, what concerns me is that the public of British Columbia has an Attorney-General who is not fulfilling his role in a proper manner. I'm not going to repeat all the statements and speeches that have been made on this matter.

[ Page 6358 ]

Our former Attorney-General, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), said a considerable amount about that today. There may be several more speeches. I simply want to make the point that if ever a province needed a freedom of information act it is the province of British Columbia. The need for that is symbolized by that Attorney-General and the manner in which he has attempted to cover up investigations that properly should be open to the public, through royal commissions or public inquiries.

This Attorney-General is not doing his job. All the fine words which he wants to bring forward in debate simply do not answer the basic question to which the people of B.C. want the answer. As far as I'm concerned, the time has long passed for this province to have a freedom of information act. If we had a freedom of information act in this province today, that Attorney-General would no longer be able to get away with evasiveness and secrecy and refusal to produce public documents which should be available to the public. He should not have that option today. All I can say is the sooner this government goes and that Attorney-General is removed, the sooner we can get back to some true freedom of information in this province.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General made some comments with respect to drinking drivers; he promised some action on the part of government to deal very forcefully with it. One suggestion — certainly not thought up by me — that has its roots going back several hundreds of years in the British justice system is the idea of a pillory. Offenders in a local village would be placed in the stock and put on display for two or three days. The resulting humiliation and ostracization by their fellow villagers was thought to be sufficient to deter any further commission of such crimes either by the offender or his fellow villagers. With respect to drinking drivers, I don't suggest to the Attorney-General that we establish a pillory for that purpose in each and every village square. However, there was a suggestion recently that seems to fit the modern definition of a pillory; that is, that as a result of a second or third conviction a driver must place upon his automobile a licence plate that indicates in some way that that person is a convicted drinking driver. It establishes in the community that that person is an offender, and therefore it will provide an incentive to others not to breach the law in that regard. Secondly, it warns the rest of us to stay away from drivers with such licence plates on their cars. It also alerts the law enforcement authorities and the traffic police when such vehicles are moving in and around the community.

Some people say that's not a serious attempt at dealing with the drinking driver. I suggest it's worthy of some consideration. It certainly would be more of a deterrent than a slap on the wrist in court, such as a $200 or $300 fine and sometimes a suspension of driving privileges for short periods of three, four and six months — sometimes a year. It seems to me that the real penalty is to cause this person to be clearly identified and marked as a consistent offender, a person who is endangering the lives of other users of the highways as well as his own.

I wanted to deal with the philosophical statement that the Attorney-General was just making with respect to the enforcement of the law. I want to discuss with the Attorney General something that I did not think it would be necessary to discuss with this or any other Attorney-General: his oath of office. In canvassing the oaths of office for Attorneys-General I find they're very similar across the country. I'll read the one from Alberta.

"You will in all things moved, treated and debated in any such executive council faithfully, honestly and truly declare your mind and opinion to the honour and benefit of the Queen's Majesty and the good of her subjects without partiality or exception of persons, in no wise forbearing so to do from any manner of respect, favour, love, need, displeasure or dread of any person or persons whatsoever."

What does that oath mean? The oath, as it is recited in the 1976 annual report of the Attorney-General's ministry, simply means that the Attorney-General is not any ordinary member of cabinet or executive council. Indeed, in some British jurisdictions the Attorney-General does not even attend cabinet meetings, to demonstrate that model of impartiality and aloofness from ordinary political decisions. His role must be as a judicial officer advising the government and protecting the even-handedness of the administration of justice.

Time after time the opposition, the media and members of justice councils have pointed out that under this administration, and particularly under this Attorney-General, the clear indication to the public of British Columbia is that there is not a fair and even-handed administration of justice; that what is a good law for the ordinary folks is not necessarily a good law for the people in the cabinet or their friends; that when someone is accused an investigation takes place that is akin to the investigations of Henry VIII and Charles I — private inquiries like Star Chamber proceedings where confessions were obtained either by torture or duress with some hope of favour or fear of prejudice. We thought those days were gone forever. Is it an exaggeration or a hyperbole, as the Attorney-General refers to it, to see that in the investigation into the Eckardt commission where, as the Attorney-General quite rightly points out, an allegation of some crime was made...? He appointed an internal inquiry, and the report that was subsequently tabled in this Legislature was from a Deputy Attorney-General, himself now before the courts on this grave matter of the uneven administration of justice in the province. Is there a law for friends or a law for all?

He appointed an internal inquiry. The Attorney-General said: "You must understand my onerous responsibility. A mere allegation of a crime is not sufficient to cart out all of the evidence that was obtained while reviewing and investigating the situation, pointing to whether or not a charge should be laid." Fair enough. If the Attorney-General had arrived, through an independent investigation, at the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to support a criminal charge — and this is done every day — no further comment should be made and no charges laid. The Attorney-General did not leave it there. His first sin was an internal inquiry leaving open that great doubt with the public and with this opposition that the inquiry was not an impartial, even-handed and, indeed, thorough one.

The second sin is that having found there was not sufficient evidence to lay a charge, he proceeded to table in this House and read into the record a political statement attacking the accusers, based upon the results of the internal, apparently prejudiced inquiry. That document has been before us for a year. Reading through it and the subsequent information we've been able to obtain on the Eckardt inquiry, we find that the report itself snakes through the evidence and produces only that evidence which will support a decision that no charge should be laid, leaving out evidence that could easily be interpreted as damaging to a member of the executive council.

[ Page 6359 ]

How has the Attorney-General fulfilled his oath with respect to that? I say not at all. We all commit sins. The Attorney-General, having committed those sins, had an opportunity to repent. He had an opportunity to place all material that was relevant before the ombudsman, who was investigating the whole issue. He has refused to do so on a narrow technicality, which he sees in the Ombudsman Act, that states that it's a question of privilege. As my colleague for Vancouver East has pointed out, that question of privilege — if it does exist — is artificial and technical, and it should be waived. The Attorney-General has refused to do so.

The libel suit with the Deputy Attorney-General is another case in which I would seriously question whether the oath of office has been fulfilled. I will not deal in detail with that as it is now sub judice.

In situation after situation this Attorney-General has apparently gone to great pains to protect the interests of his cabinet colleagues and has not fulfilled his duty with respect to the even-handed application of justice in this province. He has ignored those words in the oath which say: "without partiality or exception of persons." I'm suggesting that is a breach of the oath. This kind of protection of one's cabinet colleagues has apparently taken place. How serious is it? We don't know. We have not got the information before us. Will the ombudsman have the proper information? I'm not satisfied that the Attorney-General's suggestion is correct, when he says that the ombudsman will have the opportunity to interview witnesses and have access to the same information and documents that his own internal inquiry had. I'm not satisfied, for example, that the statements the ombudsman will take will be the same as the statements taken as a result of the internal inquiry. But there will be no opportunity for the ombudsman to point that out, because he won't have the transcripts of the evidence taken by the internal inquiry. There can be no conceivable reason for the Attorney-General to hold back this information from the ombudsman, except to protect those persons, as his cabinet colleagues, from further embarrassment — or justice.

A case in Texas was reported in the press, to show you how the power of law enforcement gone mad — when it is not used even-handedly, when people are not all equal under the law — takes place in another jurisdiction. It's a story of some black boys in Texas who were celebrating the emancipation of the slaves in the United States. Some police in Texas arrested three of them on minor charges — possession of marijuana or possession of liquor or something like that. Because a road was blocked it was decided to take these prisoners in handcuffs across a lake in a boat. The boat was swamped; it capsized and these three very athletic individuals, who were allegedly handcuffed, drowned. The two escorting policemen swam ashore. This is allegedly, because the police deny that the prisoners were handcuffed, and it appears as if we'll never know, because the police restricted the search and recovery of the bodies to themselves. There was a suggestion that the police had removed the handcuffs before the press was allowed to see the recovery operation. All of us, including the Attorney-General, regard that as a most scandalous abuse of power, if the allegations are true, and there seems to be compelling evidence in that regard. It's a scandalous abuse of power. It is a denial of justice according to the basic roots of our history of justice in the British common law and the British justice system, and yet the same principle has been applied here. The charge in Texas is that those persons, who committed what really would be at least negligent homicide, are being protected from the full weight and even-handedness of the law in Texas.

Because of high rank and position, the proper procedures have not been employed here to determine whether or not crimes or infractions had taken place. A case where you allow the search and recovery of those drowned victims to be conducted by the very people who are under suspicion of negligent homicide is the same as people who are apparently not impartial conducting an internal investigation into allegations against cabinet colleagues. I want to know whether or not the handcuffs were removed. If it can't withstand full public scrutiny, then the suspicion will always be there.

It was not I who chose to bring a full political report to this House and expose the issue to a political debate; it was the Attorney-General. He can't have only his side of the story. The other side has not been told — and there is a question here of whether it will ever be told because of the reluctance of this Attorney-General to fully disclose the materials he has with respect to that commission. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that is a breach of this oath on its face. I call upon the Attorney-General to defend himself and to demonstrate that he fulfils all of the tenets of that oath by conducting himself and his department in such a way that he fully and completely discloses all materials to the ombudsman so that the public will know that justice has been done.

Mr. Chairman, the other situation that should be made clear is a situation involving the Lenko case. The Attorney-General made some very grand statements, and he reminded me of a three-line poem I'll read out in a moment. He made some very grand statements about how cowardly an act it is.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Lenko is the chap who has just been rehired by the government.

It's not a legal case but a political one — the political issue of Lenko. It was clear. Mr. Chairman, that Lenko was directly involved in counselling an offence, that an investigation did not take place into his activity contributing to the subsequent phony letters-to-the-editor campaign and other dirty tricks, and that he was active in producing tapes of a workshop conducted by the Social Credit Party recommending such unsavoury practices. Before any harm could come to him, such as the summary dismissal not only of the Social Credit researchers but of three apparently innocent stenographers in the caucus offices, he resigned — I suppose to take the heat off. After a year he's back, and there are many questions that we have to ask with respect about our friend Lenko.

We have seen him in the parliament buildings throughout this year. He's just waiting and knowing that eventually he will be reappointed to government service, escaping a full disclosure of his involvement in that very unsavoury dirty tricks affair. Other people suffered a penalty; Lenko escaped, and now he's back again. The Attorney-General stood up in this House and said such acts were cowardly; they were wrong, irresponsible and reprehensible. Such grand language for the chief law enforcement officer in the province! What was that poem in Kychy's law relating to the Attorney-General? I want to read this little poem for the Attorney-General's edification. I want him to carry it with him, and I really hope that the balance of his term will not be marked with it and that he will not leave public life with this being the indictment of his service to the Crown:

[ Page 6360 ]

Of those great men who clothe their private hates
In the fair colours of the public good,
And to effect their ends pretend the state,
As if the state by their affection stood.

This Attorney-General is always ready with a grandiose statement, some profundity, leading the public to believe that there is even-handed justice at his hands. Yet, when called upon to actually act out that role that is properly the role of the Attorney-General, he has failed to do so.

I want to deal with coroners now. Last year and the year before I questioned the Attorney-General with respect to the coroner's service in this province. I pointed out to the Attorney-General two or three years ago that murders are being committed in this province without being detected and unknown to anyone, even the next-of-kin. I cited two cases. One involved a sniper incident on a highway where a person was killed, and it was thought for some time that it was an accident, until bullet fragments had been found. It would have been determined immediately, had an autopsy been conducted. I pointed out to the Attorney-General's department that they were taking steps to reduce the possibility of detecting these crimes by ordering fewer autopsies — by instructing coroners not to order autopsies unless they were dragged, kicking and screaming to make the order. It was a big mistake. Now the chief coroner appointed by that ministry has been fired.

I'm not going to get into the problems of the chief coroner and the Attorney-General. Whether there was a conflict of personalities or whether Chief Coroner McArthur was getting too frisky spending public money I don't know. Maybe he was empire-building; it doesn't really matter. But the comments that the late chief coroner has made since his dismissal have been most edifying. His report, which is now in wide circulation, with respect to beefing up the coroner's office, is a very enlightening one. He argues that there are hundreds of deaths in the province occurring which are culpable — in other words blameworthy — which never reach the attention of the authorities because of lack of efficiency and adequacy of the coroner's service. He was making a sincere effort to bring the coroner services in this province up to date with the rest of the provinces in this country. Not because of the coroners, but because of the niggardly attitude on the part of the government to provide such services, it's the worst coroner's service in the country.

The province of Alberta, for instance, which is a province with half our population, has five times the number of pathologists on government staff conducting autopsies. We're not spending the money necessary or attracting the professionals necessary to bring about a coroner's service such that all of us can feel confident that crimes such as culpable homicide will not go undetected. As the Attorney-General said earlier this afternoon, the least the administration of justice in this province can do is to ensure detection. The coroner's service is failing to do that.

A large portion of the coroner's office relates to hospital deaths. The current chief coroner and the Attorney-General see no conflict of interest in transferring the work of the coroner's office to the hospitals, whose directors would have an inherent self-interest in concealing the facts. I'm not suggesting that they would, but they would have an interest in doing that. Are we to place the handling of the coroner's service in this regard in the hands of the hospitals? It used to be there, but it was taken away for that very reason. Thorough and independent investigations with thorough and independent autopsies into hospital deaths have to be in place. We cannot risk the temptation on the part of hospital staff to cover up their own mistakes. That seems to be reasonable and logical, yet the Attorney-General sees no problem there. He's probably going to stand up and say: "Are you attacking the integrity of the hospital workers and the doctors and the directors?" Of course not. But in our system of justice we try to lay plans and establish structures that will avoid any such temptation.

The major reason to have a coroner is to provide an independent investigation of untimely deaths, which should be reported without bias or favour, and to make recommendations to prevent similar deaths in the future. Why is the Attorney-General attempting to remove this independence?

One of the problems in this province is that we don't have anywhere near the kind of facilities that will ensure detection of culpable homicide; we don't have that expertise. Toxicology and pathology are fledgling in this province, compared to other provinces. What does the Attorney-General do when a new coroner wants to expand those facilities? He says: "He's spending too much money. We can't afford to spend that kind of money on such a service." Well, the people of this province have to decide. Are we going to ensure detection of culpable homicide or not? Are we going to have an adequate system that will detect these kinds of things or not?

I see my time is drawing to a close, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, because I had some other points to make about the coroner service. The Attorney-General is hard-pressed now. He must ensure that an independent coroner service is being established and that proper technical support systems are available to that coroner's service so that all the public of British Columbia can be protected. There are classic examples of how they are not being protected at present.

I also want to talk about supporting the coroner himself. The coroner is underpaid. He is not given the proper support service as far as secretarial and office assistance is concerned. It limits and discourages good coroners from conducting their responsibility to the public. This was pointed out to the Attorney-General as long ago as four years. Action was promised but none has been forthcoming.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll just ask a brief question on the subject of coroners. I would like to ask the Attorney-General why he decapitated, chopped or otherwise dismissed Dr. William McArthur? He came into his office one fine day, as they say in Italian opera, to find that his successor was in his chair. Forget that it was a hurried thing. We've heard various explanations that the medical establishment didn't like the way he was investigating their hospitals. We've heard that he may have talked too much to the press about his investigations. I would have thought this a virtue, because I think the public should know what's going on. We heard that he wanted to spend more money to beef up the service. What is it? Here we have an Attorney-General who fires him and then Murphy after him, with no explanations. So here's the time of accounting in early spring of 1981 in the city of Victoria — to judge by the weather, at any rate. I would like a full explanation of why this government fired Dr. William McArthur, and Murphy for that matter; what the severance pay was. Finally, these things should be levelled about.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to respond to some of the matters raised by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the

[ Page 6361 ]

oath of office to which the hon. member referred is the oath taken by every member of the executive council, not only the Attorney-General. Let me say without hesitation that in the conduct of my responsibilities as Attorney-General I have in every respect lived up to that oath of office. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee to heed very carefully the choice of words by the member for Vancouver Centre, who at every appropriate moment inserted the word "apparently." He very carefully wove a fabric — it is just that — respecting his claims of impropriety on my part in the discharge of my responsibility. He ended up by reading a poem. I would like the hon. member to reread the poem and apply it to himself, because just prior to reading it he referred to what he called the Lenko case. It's the first time I ever heard the suggestion that Mr. Lenko was linked in any respect to any report which I provided or to certain matters which were the subject of intensive police investigation throughout this province. Moreover, it was an independent evaluation by legal counsel and not done by me personally or by any member of the Attorney-General's ministry.

MR. MACDONALD: But all sub rosa.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The second member for Vancouver East says "all sub rosa," but he knows perfectly well that it is traditional among Attorneys-General and ministers of justice that matters of criminal investigation are not reported upon in detail. To do so would expose innocent citizens to public scorn such as the member for Vancouver Centre would like to apply to people who might have been involved in convictions for impaired driving. The scorn which he would impose upon someone who has been convicted of impaired driving is precisely the scorn that he would like to impose upon someone who hasn't been convicted of any offence at all. That's the standard he would apply; that's the even-handedness. Let me say what I have said before. The citizens of this province who find themselves in conflict with the law, or in likely conflict with the law, will have their affairs investigated and dealt with in a professional way. They will not be exposed to scorn only to satisfy the apparent views of members of the opposition in this House.

MR. MACDONALD: Are judicial inquiries a thing of the past?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, they aren't a thing of the past.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, let's have a couple of them right now.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In appropriate cases we'll have them; we will not have the kind of public trial that you would like of persons who have not even had any prima facie case suggested against them.

The coroners. I am pleased that the member for Vancouver Centre has raised the question of the coroner's service, because there have been some significant changes with respect to that in the past few months, and members should be aware of them. I'll respond first of all to the question from the member for Vancouver East. Why was Dr. McArthur terminated as the chief coroner for the province of British Columbia? He was terminated on a decision which I made that Dr. McArthur's views regarding the future direction of the coroner's service were not views which I shared, nor were they shared by officials of the ministry. We were concerned that the direction in which we were moving in this province would not provide us with the coroner's service desired one such as the member for Vancouver Centre alluded to — without the unnecessary expenditure of very significant sums of money. We found on examination that the structure of the coroner's service, which had been under consideration for a year and a half or two years, was not developing. Therefore the much needed increase in the level and standards of the coroner's service was not being achieved as quickly as we considered appropriate.

It is important that we have an independent coroner's service, and I am satisfied that we have one today. I'm surprised that the member for Vancouver Centre would suggest that the decision to locate some of the facilities of the coroner's service in a hospital somehow or other interferes with the independence of the coroner's operation. I would like to remind the hon. member that it was the former coroner, Dr. McArthur, who proposed such a move — first of all in a letter to the ministry back in June, and again in his own report, which was surreptitiously released to the public, although not by Dr. McArthur and not by members of the ministry. He had as I recall, the doctor's statements, prepared that report for his own purposes. and he did not release it or authorize its distribution. Careful examination of that report indicates that it was the doctors' desire that facilities available in the hospitals of this province be utilized by the coroner's service. I would like members to know that not only in Vancouver General Hospital and the Royal Columbian, which has been a tremendous support to the coroner's service, but in all the hospitals throughout the province the facilities available are being utilized by the coroner's service today.

Since Mr. Galbraith was appointed as chief coroner we have been able to complete the structure for the organization of the coroner's service by the appointment of regional coroners. It is their specific responsibility to ensure that assistants to coroners acting within individual regions will have their work carefully coordinated. They will lend valuable assistance to local coroners with respect to investigations, inquiries and inquests. They are involved in the ongoing development of local training programs to ensure that the service is continually upgraded.

The member for Vancouver Centre suggests that other provinces have pathologists on their staff who are available to meet the needs of the coroner's service to a greater extent than is the case in British Columbia. The member fails to recognize that we have, throughout the length and breadth of this province, available to us under contract eminent pathologists who work with the coroner's service on a fee-for-service basis. We can thereby employ as required the skills and experience of qualified pathologists to meet the needs of the coroner's service as they may arise.

With regard to lab facilities, it was the case until the appointment of Mr. Galbraith that all the toxicology lab work was being done either in the city of Vancouver's laboratory facilities or at those facilities operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The consequence of this was to overload those facilities, resulting in extensive delays in receiving the reports which are necessary in order for the coroner's service to discharge its responsibilities at inquests. Since Mr. Galbraith has become the coroner we have arranged with regional hospitals throughout the province to use their lab

[ Page 6362 ]

facilities, and they have the lab facilities to undertake testing which is required. We have been able to use the extensive lab facilities at Riverview for more serious lab tests. We have therefore been able to reduce the load upon the Vancouver police laboratory and the RCMP facilities, so that they are only dealing with those laboratory tests which are required in police cases. This has provided coroners throughout the length and breadth of the province with speedier, more efficient lab service. We aren't going to stop there. The Ministry of Health, in cooperation with the Ministry of Attorney General and the coroner's service, is planning new provincial lab facilities, so that we will be able to have the best-equipped and best-staffed public-health lab facilities available in modern medical science. When those facilities are complete, we will be able to provide even better service to all the coroners in the province than we are able to do today.

I should point out to members that we have in the province 123 fee-for-service coroners assisting the ministry. Of those, 31 are members of the medical profession and six are lawyers. They work throughout the length and breadth of the province, in all our communities. With the assistance of the regional coroners, they form a network throughout the province, so that as the need arises professional and technical expertise can be brought to bear upon the coroners operations.

The member for Vancouver East has left the chamber. He made some comment with respect to Mr. Murphy, who served with the coroner's service, and my termination of him. He's factually incorrect. Mr. Murphy was not terminated by the Attorney-General. In the restructuring of the coroner's service the position which he was then occupying disappeared, as he knew it would. Mr. Murphy chose not to reapply for one of the existing vacancies which would be available to him.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the main complaint which the constituents in Vancouver-Seymour have about the administration of justice in this province is that our judicial system is too permissive. Not only do we have too many laws, but the laws themselves, they think, are too bland and administered even more blandly. The result is that too many offenders — at least in their opinion — are getting off. They're being let off by our judicial system partly because they shouldn't have been charged in the first place, or perhaps because our judges, for reasons known best to themselves, are much softer on crime than the average B.C. voter wants them to be.

The complaint which I hear expressed on every side nowadays, Mr. Chairman, was well summed up in a letter published in the Peace River Block News in Dawson Creek recently. The minister has already made reference to it. Angered at the increase in crime and the lack of punishment of these crimes, the newspaper's editor, Mr. Glen Dalke wrote a blistering editorial, which read in part:

"I'm sick and tired of hearing of people who have been arrested for one crime or another and released on bail, only to go out and commit yet another offence.

"The penal system was at one time a way to protect society from these criminal types, and when the judiciary followed the old adage of punishment fitting the crime, it worked well. However, our society's permissiveness has now infiltrated this body that was set up to protect us.

"The judiciary should take a hard look at them selves and come to the realization that they have become too permissive.

"It must be extremely frustrating for our law enforcement officers. Imagine, if you will, society's rage if — God forbid — police forces became this permissive and quite simply stopped making arrests, gave up and said: 'What's the use?' "

Mr. Dalke said even better than I can what the vast majority of British Columbians are thinking and saying as well. But this, interestingly enough, got Mr. Dalke into trouble with the powers that be, and his reward for speaking his mind editorially — and certainly as a result of expressing these perfectly logical, legitimate and widely shared beliefs — was that he was summoned before an indignant judge of the Prince George county court and ordered to show cause why he should not be cited for criminal contempt. So much for the matter of freedom of speech in our society whose judiciary frequently winks at those who break one or more of our numerous laws, even if they have broken them again and again.

Luckily for Mr. Dalke he appeared before a judge with some common sense who wasn't as thin-skinned as the county court judge was: Mr. Justice F. Craig Munroe of the B.C. supreme court. He ruled in the case of Mr. Dalke: "The editorial in question was written in good faith, without malice, for no improper purpose, and attributed no improper motive to those taking part in the administration of justice, on matter of public interest." Mr. Justice Munroe then went on to quote Lord Atkin, the famous 1936 Privy Council ruling, namely: "Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments by ordinary men."

Mr. Justice Munroe's ruling, of course, had to concern itself not only with Mr. Dalke's right to express the view that the penal system and the courts are failing to protect society by being too soft — otherwise too permissive. The ruling protected the public's right to say the same thing. It wasn't a finding that the judiciary was in fact being sloppy in the administration of justice, but there was an inference — subtle as it was — that those who are responsible for the administration of justice in this province should take a long, hard look at the laws we are passing and the kind of people we're appointing to administer these numerous laws at a time when the majority of our voters want fewer laws, clearer laws and a tighter system to administer these laws in British Columbia.

First, on the number of laws: we are adding to their number and their variety with each session of the Legislature, of the House of Commons and of every elected body in this country. Our two senior levels of government alone are grinding out more than a hundred new acts a year. Sometimes they repeat part of another older act, rarely an entire act. Rarely do they wipe a major act off our statute books. So we have dozens of pieces of legislation being added to that amorphous mass which I will call the law. Little is being stripped away. On balance, the verbiage is growing at a rate of about 10 percent a year. It's doubling every seven years. It's growing at a compound rate, one which is bound to sink not only the judicial system but also the ship of state if this keeps on.

Unfortunately, laws are also becoming more complex. When a revision takes place, 10 pages are often replaced by 20 pages or more; sometimes it's 50. In the case of the Income Tax Act passed by the federal government in the early

[ Page 6363 ]

1970s, it was a three-fold increase in bulk. That's not to mention the host of regulations which usually follow in the train of legislation of this kind. One of our hon. members and compatriots sent around a little message the other day. It was headed: "The Age of Verbal Overkill." It says: "The Lord's Prayer has 56 words. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has 266 words. The Ten Commandments have 297. The Declaration of Independence has 300. A recent U.S. government letter setting out the price of cabbage has 26,911 words."

This tendency to overregulate, and to add qualifying phrases is bad enough; but the small print — a term which I will use to describe the regulations issued later; that is, after the act is passed by the government of the day — is even more distressing. There is apparently no end to this kind of lawmaking. A new act may be impressive enough in itself, but when the cabinet or even a single minister or, indeed, a non-elected representative on a regulatory body drafts a new regulation, we have new law. Therefore we have laws enacted — even when the cabinet and sometimes the ministers themselves aren't involved — which have the force of all other laws. Perhaps some of our ministers understand this detailed legislation; perhaps their officials do; perhaps a few of them do. These kinds of laws face little public scrutiny prior to their authorization. They're law, and they must be administered just as effectively as if they were the first rule of the land. They have the full weight of the Crown in right of Canada or the Crown in right of the province behind them. They can be light-handed or heavy-handed. They can have the effect of a scalpel or a sledgehammer. It's up to our appointed judiciary to administer them in due course. It's little wonder that our magistrates and our judges sympathize with those who run afoul of many of these kinds of laws and legislation — indeed, this overkill in legislation, especially if the circumstances are unusual and the accused hasn't run into this kind of red tape with a cutting edge before.

I can speak with some personal authority on this subject because I've been through the legal mill myself. When the government hammered me without prior notice on the subject of travel expenses — keeping the difference between economy and first-class airfares and not charging other expenses — I was prosecuted under a regulation, not the act itself. The regulation defining the word " allowance" — and the act was dated 1917 — said that I was "allowed an actual, reasonable expense, " whatever that meant. The court focused on the word "actual" and dismissed the word "reasonable, " and so I was convicted. But mark this: within a few weeks of my dropping my appeal a new regulation was passed by cabinet dropping the word "reasonable" and defining an allowable expense as an actual expense — keep your receipts, no matter how large the amount, and you're safe. It seems "reasonable" has gone out the window, even in matters of this kind.

I mentioned that a hundred new acts are being passed by our senior levels of government — federal and provincial — each year in this country. Where acts are numbered in the hundreds, orders-in-council or regulations are numbered in the many thousands. Last year, at the two senior levels of government, we collectively passed approximately 5,000 new regulations. Even at the provincial level we're averaging between 1,000 and 2,000 a year. This is too much for our judicial system to handle. It's far too much law for our law-abiding society to sustain. More and more people are breaking laws which they didn't know existed. When they're apprehended, they aren't given a chance to make amends. As a result, they think our legal system is unfair and unjust. They may even think it's discriminatory in the sense that they have been picked on unnecessarily, or so they think, while others who have offended the same law get off scot-free.

Recently I had occasion to raise this subject with one of our former federal ministers of justice. He said right off the top: "We don't have a system of justice in this country, we have a system of law. It's the administration of the written law that counts." I'm afraid he was right. It's the administration of too many laws — laws in their growing numbers which are not only little-discussed and poorly thought out, but which common sense dictates should be and often are ignored in the courts, especially where the imposition of penalties is concerned.

Back to Mr. Glen Dalke and his editorial. It's not just a matter of the judges going soft on the typical offender of our laws; it's a matter of increasing concern to our police forces also. Our judiciary, as it becomes more and more permissive, as it lets its first, second or even third-time offender get off, enrages our enforcement officers. To quote Mr. Dalke's editorial again: "It must be extremely frustrating for our law enforcement officers. Imagine, if you will, society's rage if our police forces became this permissive, and quite simply stopped making arrests, gave up, said, 'What's the use?' "

What's the use, indeed? There are too many laws and few of them have any real cutting edge left. More people, unfortunately, are being accused of unlawful acts, but many more, percentage-wise, are getting off or being ignored altogether. When this happens in highly visible cases — cases involving solicitation for the purposes of prostitution on our streets, for example, then the enforcement process in this country is really in trouble.

Some hon. members will remember the so-called Wendy King case. A few of us may even have read the little book, The Wendy King Story, before it was banned by court action taken against Wendy King and its publisher, Mr. Robert Wilson. What that book really said was "Why me?" The streetwalkers get off, and they get off repeatedly. They get off even though their lives are being managed by others. They are the truly exploited. They are also a public nuisance, but they are being dismissed almost routinely by our courts. So why pick on a person who engages in prostitution on their own, with a consenting adult and in the privacy of their own apartment — in effect, their own home? These are good questions, but an even more important one is: who tried to turn the police off when the drug squad accidentally spotted Justice Farris entering Wendy King's apartment? There was an unexplained lag between that incident and the bringing of a charge of prostitution. It was only when an overzealous security manager at the Devonshire Hotel made statements on an open-line show in Vancouver that things really began to happen. He had heard the grumblings of the law enforcement officers and he talked, perhaps too much. Then the establishment had to act. Justice Farris had to resign and for once the enforcers had their revenge on a judiciary which, in their opinion, is too liberal in matters of this kind.

I'm not pointing a finger, really, at anyone. I'm saying that most British Columbians believe that we are too permissive in the administration of justice in this country. The reason, as far as I'm concerned, is not hard to find. We have too many laws. We're passing too many laws and far too many orders-in-council or regulations nowadays. We're overloading our judicial system. We're making it impossible to administer our innumerable laws in a just and reasonable manner. We're punishing some people unnecessarily, and

[ Page 6364 ]

we're making those who get off, or appear to get off, look bad. Our judges are only human. With all this pressure of more law and more detailed law, they're bound to make mistakes. Becoming specialists, they're losing both their perspective and their common touch. Common sense is giving way to book learning. The prize is going to those in our judiciary who know more and more about less and less. The wording of an obscure regulation is being given weight out of all proportion these days. My sympathy, then, to our judges, but my sympathy even more for our police — our law enforcement officers. Their job, as Gilbert and Sullivan so aptly described it in the latter part of the nineteenth century, is not a happy one. If anything, it's even less happy these days. Often it's frustrating, and that frustration has as much to do with the number and the lack of quality of our new laws as anything else.

There's a strong argument, I think, for a well-worded bill of rights in our Canadian constitution. It runs like this. Laws passed by Ottawa or a province — that includes all their regulations — should be subject to a simple test: do they offend the basic rights of Canadians as individuals? Some of them undoubtedly do and many of them have. I'd like to see these laws tested on occasion against a simple, straightforward and well-thought-out bill of rights, a fundamental law that guards our rights as individual citizens and prevents the bureaucrat and the busy politician from legislating us to death. That's at least one reason why I'm for, not against, a bill of rights in our constitution.

Back to the minister and the administration of justice in this province. Could he tell us roughly how many laws and regulations or orders-in-council are being passed each year on average by this Legislature and this government? I don't expect him to have the answer at his fingertips, of course, but I would like to know some time before these estimates are concluded what the numbers for British Columbia currently are.

MR. LAUK: Before the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour took his place in this debate in committee, the Attorney-General, under the pretence of replying to my critique, suggested that.... He was trying to duck his oath by saying that other colleagues in cabinet take the same oath. The Attorney-General does not understand the uniqueness of his position, and that's a big problem, Mr. Chairman. I would refer him to his own annual report of 1975. His predecessor, the hon. first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom), was then Attorney-General. In reporting, the Deputy Attorney-General said this:

"He" — the Attorney-General — "is not only the head of a department and thereby obliged to advance the interests of his department among his cabinet colleagues in caucus and in the Legislature; he must also be able to advise government and provide legal opinions irrespective of the political implications and independent of the political consequences that might result either to his department or to the government generally. That is a unique role for a minister of the Crown. The words are worth repeating, because I believe few people understand the importance in our society of that role. It demands a candour and frankness not always found in political life. We must always preserve that independent role, a cornerstone of our parliamentary system."

The Attorney-General then gets up and says: "Oh, well, my oath is the same as any other oath in the cabinet." He's ducking his responsibility and culpability in the role he has played to cover up evidence with respect to the Eckardt commission, the allegations against the Deputy Attorney General and many other matters that have occurred while this minister has been the Attorney-General of this province. The role that Attorney-General has played is nothing short of a scandal.

With respect to coroners, the Attorney-General suggests that it's okay to use the lab facilities of the hospitals, because the police labs will handle police cases. I suppose that passes everybody. But if you know the actual process by which a case becomes a police case, you know that the coroner's office, the pathologist and the toxicologist have to be involved in the first instance in many cases — before it becomes a police case. If he means by a police case that the police are involved, police are primarily involved in all death cases. There are very few in which they are not. A police constable is always called to the scene, does a cursory examination of what's occurred and then calls the coroner. That's the process. In that sense, all cases are police cases. If he's talking about police cases involving investigation of culpable homicide, how do we get to that stage without a pathologist's report? How do we get to that stage without toxicology?

The Attorney-General has still not answered the very serious criticism that if hospital facilities are used, what is to prevent the temptation for doctors, directors and officials involved with that hospital to cover up or destroy evidence that would implicate them in a blameworthy death at the hospital itself, or to prevent one hospital moving to protect the reputation of and the individuals involved at another hospital. This is left open, and it's a serious criticism. It's not enough for the Attorney-General to say: "It's going to cost too much money; let's just throw it in there." Why have it in the first place? If you're not going to seriously determine what the cause of death is in these cases, don't bother. But if you are serious and you want to find out with certainty the cause of death and whether it's a result of blameworthy or culpable homicide, then give the adequate facilities and the independence to the coroner's service that that goal requires.

The Coroners Act, section 9(2), requires that deaths in institutions, such as homes for the aged and mental hospitals, be reported to a coroner. However, as no full-time coroner is available to investigate such deaths, these are subsequently going unreported.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm looking at the report that's in wide circulation. It is suggested in that report that over 100 infant deaths each year are incorrectly classified due to inadequate investigation. I wonder what is on the Attorney-General's mind when he's trying to shave a dime here and shave a dollar there when it comes to those kinds of figures. Is the Attorney General satisfied that there will be any improvement in this situation during the two-year period when the coroner's office is being relocated? Is the Attorney-General willing to take the responsibility for unnecessary deaths which may take place in the meantime because of inadequate staff and facilities? Is he going to personally take that responsibility?

The effectiveness of a coroner's system depends on the quality of forensic pathology that is available. In 1979 the chief coroner advised that three forensic pathologists were

[ Page 6365 ]

required to ensure that British Columbia did not continue to lag behind most of the developed world in its standards of forensic pathology. As of March 20 this year my office has determined that there is not a single full-time forensic pathologist in the province. It's not enough to say that there is a fee-for-service program; we all know that. The adequacy and the professionalism of a pathologist, linked to forensic medicine, is the important essential ingredient — not a part-time forensic pathologist but a full-time forensic pathologist who is familiar with the machinery of the coroner's service and the facilities available to him. I know he's referring to the one or two individuals who are on a fee-for-service basis in this service. It's not adequate, and we're getting the kinds of figures that I've just read out to the committee.

I'm not going to get into a running debate with the Attorney-General about why he dismissed McArthur or why Murphy was dismissed or anything like that, but it is a sad day indeed, Mr. Chairman, if those people were dismissed because they were trying to do something for the public of this province with respect to coroner's service and the Attorney-General didn't like it — it cost too much money or he didn't like the way it was gone about. It's a sad day indeed if those dismissals are followed — and seemed to be followed — by inaction on the part of this ministry to provide a good coroner's service. The Attorney-General still has not answered those criticisms. I repeat that it's not enough for the Attorney-General to argue that the dismissals just occurred as a matter of reorganization or something like that, when the reorganization itself is causing a failure in the coroner's service to detect culpable or blameworthy deaths.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, before I take my seat and permit others to speak, I want seriously to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General the problem, as I perceive it, that his view or his role of his office is sadly mistaken and incorrect. He has taken positions on several incidents, already mentioned here and in last year's estimates, that protect his cabinet colleagues, and that is not his role. His role is to make sure that there is an even-handed application of the administration of justice, not to protect his cabinet colleagues. As the Attorney-General's own report states, "he must also be able to advise government and provide legal opinions, irrespective of the political implications and independent of the political consequences that might result either to his department or the government generally." The Attorney-General stands condemned. He has not fulfilled that very heavy responsibility. He's been found wanting and he has failed in that position as Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond very briefly to the member on his concerns about the coroners. It's interesting that he quotes from Dr. McArthur's report, Dr. McArthur being the former chief coroner. Just a year ago, when he was chief coroner, Dr. McArthur wrote urging approval for the immediate move of medical-legal laboratories from their then position on Cordova Street to the Vancouver General Hospital. He categorized that as an urgent matter impacting significantly upon the quality of justice in British Columbia. That is a view which is shared by the present chief coroner. I wish to assure members of the committee that with respect to the operation of coroner's facilities that use space in hospitals, they are run entirely by the coroner's service and not by the hospital administration. If the member for Vancouver Centre were as knowledgeable as he would lead one to believe from his remarks, he would recognize that fact.

May I also say that the statistics which he was quoting with respect to deaths and a number of other categories can at best be described as wild speculation. I say that because one of the concerns which I have had, along with the officials of the ministry and the pre-sent chief coroner, is that there has not existed in British Columbia a data base upon which such statistics could be developed. It is being put in place now. That has been one of the problems. It was a problem when Mr. Galbraith became the chief coroner. and we are moving as quickly as possible to correct it. Without a proper base, proper record-keeping or proper statistics, it is virtually impossible to determine what is taking place in the fields which the member mentioned.

I would also hasten to add that, as the members will recognize, we are entering the third year of the operation of the coroner's service, following the major amendment which created the coroner service as it is today. In that first year $1.4 million was expended for this service. The budget has now increased by 100 percent. Significant fiscal resources are being employed for this service; in addition, the direction in which we are moving is to utilize existing facilities which contribute to the efficient functioning of the coroner's service.

MR. LAUK: I just have one point. The statistics which I cited came from the former chief coroner of the province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. That was the problem.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General says that was the problem. Was the man fired because he said something that caused some discomfort to the government? Was he fired because he was trying to achieve public recognition of a serious problem in the province? Is that what the Attorney General is saying?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. LAUK: The figure cited was from the chief coroner of the province. He was the authority at that time. He said there were 100 infant deaths improperly classified. The Attorney-General now superimposes himself as the expert and says that the chief coroner was wrong and that was why he was fired. Well, that's a very sad indictment of the way this Attorney-General acts. He kills the messenger. The message is clear, and it's a sad one. It's an indictment of the coroner's service, which has been starved to death by this government.

We need adequate facilities. The Attorney-General has still not answered that conflict-of-interest criticism with respect to moving the coroner's laboratory services into hospital situations. I'm not saying it won't work, but he has not satisfied the public or this committee that safeguards have been taken against conflict-of-interest situations arising. The Attorney-General stands condemned. He said: "I fired the chief coroner because he gave me information that made me uncomfortable." He's arguing that the statistics were wrong. How does he know?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I can't allow that last statement to go unanswered. The member is obfuscating, as he always does. The fact of the matter is that I did not say that Dr. McArthur was terminated because of any such matters; I simply tried to point out to the member that he was quoting

[ Page 6366 ]

statistics. One of the difficulties we have in the coroner's service is that there is no data base upon which statistics can be properly developed. That's one of the problems we have in the coroner service. I did not say it was the reason Dr. McArthur was terminated.

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted to deal with a couple of other aspects. Quite briefly, the first one deals with something that's been touched upon by other speakers: the uneven nature of the Attorney-General's administration. When we deal with the specific complaint of the ombudsman about the civil law division, he says: "I have had more problems with this division than any other branch of government." He's zeroing in on the Loffmark pension problem. The Attorney-General has taken the position that an opinion given by someone in his ministry to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) surrounding Mr. Loffmark's pension is something clothed in solicitor-client privilege. On the surface that sounds correct. What I want the Attorney-General to do first of all is to tell us if this privilege exists. He has asked the Provincial Secretary to waive that privilege. As the Attorney-General well knows, that privilege does not reside in the hands of the lawyer that gives the opinion, nor does that privilege lie with the Attorney-General. If there's any privilege surrounding the Loffmark pension opinion, the privilege is on the part of the client. The client was the Provincial Secretary.

To demonstrate some good faith to this House and to demonstrate that the Attorney-General is not stonewalling the ombudsman, which no doubt he claims, will he now stand in this House and say that he is officially requesting or has requested the Provincial Secretary to waive any privilege he may have surrounding that particular opinion? Will he waive that privilege and allow the ombudsman to do a decent and complete investigation into that matter? If they're stonewalling, the reason is very clear. Whether the Attorney-General or anybody else knows it, there is a strong suspicion in that case that someone intervened to elicit that opinion at a period of time when Mr. Loffmark took a very public stance in opposition to this government. If the Attorney-General is preventing an investigation of that question, he is failing to fulfil even the minimum obligation he has to this House and to the province to dispense justice in an even-handed way. He's abandoning it.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If we look at the reports of ombudsmen right across the country, I don't think we will see one that is more damning than the report of our own ombudsman with respect to this Attorney-General. He has failed to stand in his place and defend himself from the most serious charge that I've seen one public official level against another — certainly in the history of the ombudsman's office, as it applies in Canada. The first question to the Attorney-General is: will he now request the Provincial Secretary to waive any solicitor-client privilege around that, so that there can be a more full investigation surrounding the opinion that was given with respect to the Loffmark pension — an opinion, of course, which has since been found to be legally incorrect by the courts?

The next subject I want to raise with the Attorney-General deals with his responsibility as the chief law enforcement officer of the province. It's not really a question that deals with whether justice is even-handed. It deals with his responsibility for law and order in the province of British Columbia, and the responsibility to try to head off problems through the use of the law, before they come to the point of explosion. I think what the Attorney-General and his government suffer from is a bad education about the history of this province and its minorities. What we see is an Attorney-General who had a kind of laundered education around the history of racism in British Columbia. We live in a province which is explosive and on the edge of very dangerous times, indeed because of the ethnic mix that has been welcomed by all parts of this House, I would suspect.

What I refer to, of course, is the question of how the Attorney-General deals with the growing problem of the KKK. I'm going to anticipate the two responses that he's going to give to these remarks. First of all he's going to tell me that it's under investigation. The second thing he's going to say is: "If you have evidence, bring me the evidence and we'll look at it and follow it up." Both of those responses are inadequate for this reason: as the chief law enforcement official in the province of British Columbia, it is his duty to see that law enforcement zeroes in on special problems, so that we prevent more serious problems from developing. We did it on drug enforcement. Can the Attorney-General tell us whether CLEU has a special mandate to look at this question? Is there a special investigative team now dealing with the serious problem of the KKK in the province? I hope his answer to both those questions will be yes. Not for a moment will I accept the Attorney-General's response of "if I tell you, it will inhibit the investigation." I don't believe it will at all. I think it's time we told the KKK that we're going to investigate them and that we're going to prosecute for violations of the law. If it takes more people to do it, we've got to do it. We have a special task force in CLEU. They have done an excellent job in many areas. I want to know whether CLEU has been mandated at all in the KKK question.

The Attorney-General rises in his place and says: "Oh, you guys are always making these wild charges. Give me some evidence." Let's read the report of Rick Ouston — under his byline. It's from the Vancouver Sun of June 1, 198 1. He says: "

"Let us offer a prayer of thanks to God for creating us in his image, for giving us white skin and superior intelligent."

That's how the invocation begins at the famous Stave Lake cross-burning.

"With that invocation, delivered by a blonde woman in her early twenties, the Ku Klux Klan's first public cross-burning in B.C. in years was underway Sunday. Before long, 40 white supremacists, a dozen of them wearing white robes, were brandishing flaming torches, making Nazi-style salutes and chanting 'White Power,' as an eight-metre-high, rough-hewn wooden cross sent flames into the darkening sky."

I don't think Rick Ouston made that up. I got a feeling that he was there. He said he was there; I believe him. I wonder if the law enforcement people of this province have now interviewed Mr. Ouston with regard to violations of at least three acts: the B.C. Firearm Act, the Human Rights Code and the Criminal Code. The scene was a remote beach at Stave Lake. The road onto the beach was guarded by two men carrying rifles. What are two men doing guarding this particular meeting by carrying rifles? What right do they have to guard this particular meeting? What right to they have to carry firearms? Do they have firearm permits under the Firearm Act? Do they have a right to carry firearms to a meeting? As

[ Page 6367 ]

the Attorney-General will know, that is a specific violation of the Criminal Code. You cannot carry any firearm to a meeting. That's a very serious criminal offence in Canada. You can't carry firearms for any purpose that is dangerous to the public peace. That is an even more serious offence — that's an indictable offence.

I'm going on to quote from the article:

"The woman speaking identified herself as Anne Farmer. She said she was the National Grand Chaplain of the Canadian Klan and the girlfriend of Wolfgang Droege, the ex-B.C. Klan leader, now in a New Orleans jail....

"Canadian Klan leader Alexander McQuirter, who attended the ceremony, was asked about the Klan's claim to have attracted a 'new breed' of recruit — businessmen instead of workers. He said 'the (people who wear) ties type' are the new Klan majority, but they want to protect their jobs, so they just provide money and other backroom assistance...."

Following this, we have reports of the East Indian Defence Committee arming themselves. I don't think we can live in an artificial atmosphere in Victoria for very long without being exposed to some very serious race problems that are developing. In my view, one of the most serious problems is developing in the Fraser Valley, where we have the farmworkers' union presently organizing the farm community. That has all the potential for explosion. And who is in the middle of that? The Ku Klux Klan, which has been allowed to grow and develop in the friendly atmosphere of this government.

Words are not enough in condemning the dangers of this organization. Actions speak much louder, but there has been no action whatsoever. Let's look at the offences that prima facie have been committed by that organization without charges being laid. First, if you want to deal with the Criminal Code, section 83 says this: "Everyone who carries or has in his possession a weapon or imitation thereof for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years." I don't think Mr. Ouston imagined seeing two rifles at that meeting. He was pretty clear about it. It wasn't hearsay; they were there. There was no attempt to justify it by saying they were hunting. Are we going to allow people in this province to wander around with guns and burn crosses at meetings, or are we going to do something about it?

Section 84 says: "Everyone who has a weapon in his possession while he is attending or is on his way to attend a public meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction." I think the Legislature is at least owed an explanation as to why charges aren't laid under that section when the evidence is so clear, so unequivocal, from the eyewitness to that particular meeting.

Last but not least, our own human rights legislation provides — I'll have to paraphrase it, but I know the Attorney-General is familiar with it — that the display of a symbol is an offence where that symbol means race discrimination. I don't know what else you can call a burning cross. Here's the section, "Discriminatory publication," section 2(l) of the Human Rights Code: "No person shall publish or display before the public, or cause to be published or displayed before the public, a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or class of persons in any manner prohibited by this Act." That sounds like a burning cross to me.

Why no action on the KKK? I hope the Attorney-General is going to rise in his place and say: "Yes, we have a special investigative team; yes, CLEU has been mandated to get on top of this problem." But a long time has gone by. Race relations in this province are getting worse, because it is a powder keg. We have an ethnic mix that needs law and order on its side. We do not need any groups in this province arming themselves for protection against any other group. The reason for this powder keg is the lack of action on the part of this Attorney-General and his government.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Compare the actions against the KKK with the actions — as my colleague, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), reminds me — against the picketers at Adams Laboratories in Surrey. It didn' t take long to get on the site then.

MR. HALL: They had them in handcuffs right away.

MR. LEGGATT: They had them in handcuffs and on their way. They barely had to open their mouths and they were in jail. But the KKK has been spouting their poison around this province for over a year, having high profile. They have been on the news; they are in the newspapers; they are on the hotline shows.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're doing it.

MR. LEGGATT: Oh, I'm doing it.

Somehow we haven't got a government that's able to find any violations of law.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I see, it will go away. The first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says that if you ignore the KKK they'll all file back into the woodwork. Right? You think that's the way to deal with the problem? Is that the way the minister deals with his portfolio? The way to look at a problem is to put it in your desk and it will disappear. I don't think that's the right answer, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Translate it whichever way you want. You're doing them a favour every day.

MR. LEGGATT: You're sending a message out to the people of British Columbia: "It's okay to belong to the KKK. We don't prosecute them; we don't talk about them; we ignore them. Therefore they're a respectable organization." They are not a respectable organization. They are in violation of many of the laws of this province, and we haven't seen a single charge laid yet.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're giving them stature. Shame on you. Just for political purposes.

MR. LEGGATT: No, I'm not giving them stature. They're getting stature because of inaction on the part of this government.

[ Page 6368 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For political purposes you're giving them stature. Boy, politics goes pretty low sometimes.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, it's important that the Attorney-General seize upon his prime responsibility, which is the maintenance of law and order in the province of British Columbia. We have to look to him for leadership on that subject. I ask him to rise in his place now and tell us that there is a special task force. Tell us that the KKK is violating the law and is under investigation and charges are forthcoming. Send a message out there to people who are increasingly nervous about their own safety. As long as we have inaction on the part of this government this movement will grow, as it has in other areas. I suppose the first member for Surrey would have said that Hitler would have gone away if we just ignored him and said nothing about him. It doesn't work that way. You've got to stand up and be counted on something like the KKK. If you go to sleep on it, they just grow and grow.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few things to say about prostitution. I know the first member for Surrey is very fascinated by that subject as well, but I would like to hear the Attorney-General's response on this most important problem in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: First of all may I deal with the matter of privilege that the member raised. May I simply say this: when this matter was raised in the House during question period some days ago I made inquiries as to the extent of the investigation by the ombudsman into the records of the superannuation branch, and I'm advised that the letter of opinion to which the member refers had already been disclosed to the ombudsman's investigator. Quite frankly I am left to wonder what the issue is.

The member raises the question of the activities of the KKK. I assume he would include in his concern actions of a similar nature by others who may not follow that particular association but hold the same views. I am as distressed at the public reports of these activities as is the member. I will not advise him what specific action is being taken on the part of law enforcement agencies in this province except to say, as I have previously, that matters of this nature have not been ignored and are not being ignored. I suppose it would be of some advantage to the member if it were announced that a special detail of police officers were charging off into the highways and byways of British Columbia seeking out people who meet clandestinely in places to which the press and nobody else is invited. He can read provisions of the Criminal Code for as long as he wishes, but he knows that unless one identifies and apprehends the perpetrator of particular conduct no charge can be laid. I trust that with his experience he will recall that matters of this kind often take longer than any of us would wish to identify and take the appropriate action. However, to suggest, as he does, that we're living in a powder-keg and to refer to certain activities with regard to trade union organization as contributing to that is, I think, doing a disservice to the people who are involved in those legitimate activities. To raise concerns and even threats with respect to the future of those activities.... I would caution the member against activities which may lead to misinterpretation. The matter is not being ignored and will not be ignored: steps will be taken to apprehend people who offend against the law and they will be brought to justice.

MR. LEGGATT: During a question period sometime earlier in this session there was some indication not only that the McAlpine report would be released but also that we could expect some action this session with respect to this problem. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General can take the House into his confidence on this and advise if we can expect either legislative changes or some announcement which deals with the particular problem. I think it was the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) who indicated in answer to a question surrounding the KKK that they anticipated action this session on this particular subject. Has the Attorney-General any information to give the House on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I must point out to members of the committee that the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

MRS. DAILLY: I wish to move on to another area with the Attorney-General at this time, although it's obvious that the opposition has received no satisfaction whatsoever on the inadequacies of the handling by the Attorney-General and the government of Ku Klux Klan activities in this province.

The area I want to deal with is the area of the youth detention home, which we used to refer to formerly as the "Willingdon Home for Delinquent Boys and Girls." One of the most satisfying moments that I personally had as a cabinet minister was when the NDP government was able to shut down Willingdon Detention Home, as it was used at the time when we came into office. Cells were being used where 12-year-old children were being placed and where children with mixed emotional problems were being placed together — children who were psychotic with children who simply had run away from home because they were upset one night.

The return of the Social Credit government has brought back again to the province of British Columbia the handling of young people in this province to the way they were handled 50 or 60 years ago. At the present time we have 90 children detained in Willingdon. I think we're all aware of a very tragic accident — which is called "an accident:" and I want to discuss that with the Attorney-General — which happened at the Willingdon Detention Centre a year ago. A young boy of 14 was drowned in the swimming pool at Willingdon. After eight months an inquest was finally held. Following the inquest, it was decided that death was accidental. There have been some inmates at that detention centre who have said that they do not believe it was accidental. They believe that this 14-year-old boy — who should never, in my opinion, have even been placed in that institution — was held down by some other inmates in that pool until he drowned. I know I have no proof of that, but I have taken the time, as I hope the Attorney-General has, to read the report of the inquest. I'll tell you, after you read through all those pages you come away with even greater concern about what must be taking place at this detention centre which the Social Credit government endorses. It isn't until there's an accident there that we suddenly find some minor changes being made.

Mr. Chairman, are you aware of the fact that there were no professional lifeguards on duty at that pool? Are you aware that there were just a few rules on how to behave in the pool posted? Are you aware that none of those children who were sent there and go into the swimming pool are even checked out to see if they can swim? Are you aware that there is very

[ Page 6369 ]

little staff training for the handling of young people who are having a swimming activity? I could go on and on with the areas that I think would make any person in this room very concerned, particularly when we know that a 14-year-old boy was drowned — a 14-year-old boy who probably should never have been placed there to begin with.

Did you know why this boy was put there? He had run away from home. I'm not saying that boy didn't have problems, but the point is: what did we do with him? We — I have to take the responsibility; we're all members of this society — sit back and these things continue to happen. He was placed in there along with 89 other people — some of them, I'm sure, psychotic; some of them with terrible problems; some of them terribly assertive and aggressive. Can you imagine yourself as a 14-year-old boy, which you must have been at one time, being sent into a detention home such as that?

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I know that everybody has a right to laugh in this House. I do too. But I'll tell you, at this very moment, when I hear the Premier and his colleagues laughing when I'm talking about the unnecessary death of a 14-year-old boy, I'm ashamed for them.

MR. KEMPF: That's a cheap shot.

MRS. DAILLY: It's cheap of your Premier and your colleagues to be sitting over there laughing.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

MRS. DAILLY: If he considers this garbage, so be it. I can't help it.

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

MRS. DAILLY: A number of questions that have been asked about this case have been sent to the Attorney-General. I know he has them. He has been asked to make a probe of this incident, and I understand today that the Attorney-General has stated in the paper that he does not intend to investigate this incident further — that if anything is going to happen now, it's up to Corrections. This is not satisfactory, Mr. Chairman. For example, when the Attorney-General says he's going to leave it up to the corrections department, how about answering some of these questions through the corrections department? I say that some of the questions I'm going to pose here, which have been posed by the child-care worker who was so concerned that he wrote to the Attorney-General, are questions that can only be answered through the Attorney-General's ministry.

Why was the family of the boy not directed to their rights to a lawyer? Why was the inquest delayed for over ten months? If the police investigation had to do with that delay, why did they say so very little at the inquest? Why did they make no reference to the 14 statements in their possession from the others in the pool? Did those statements mention roughhousing or fighting in the pool? Could Robert — this is the boy who drowned — swim, and how well? None of these have been answered, Mr. Chairman. Would one push or one dunking get him into trouble? Was the man who was acting as lifeguard working a 16-hour shift? I do not want to take up the time of the House to go through every one of these questions, but I'm only posing these to you so that the minister in reply can explain to me why he would not follow up these very relevant questions with a proper investigation.

That is to deal with one aspect of the case; the other thing I want to deal with referring to this case is the very fact that there wasn't a lifeguard on duty. And you know one of the reasons given by the staff was budgetary — not enough money to hire a full-time lifeguard in this pool in a detention home. Money is being poured out by that government to try to build up their PR images, and yet there isn't enough money for a lifeguard in a pool operated by this government where children are sent without proper protection. There is not enough training of the staff for these incidents. I'm asking the Attorney-General what he is going to do about this case. Are you satisfied that this case should just be dropped now completely and left up to Corrections?

Mr. Chairman, none of us can bring back the life of Robert, who drowned, but let us remember the children who are there now and of whom, unfortunately, many will have to be there because of this government which still believes in incarcerating young people in this kind of environment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the matters raised by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). First of all, may I say that her statistics are considerably in error. The population at the Willingdon home is not 90 children; as a matter of fact, it was 70 in the previous months, and last month it dropped to 60.

With regard to this unfortunate incident that occurred more than a year ago — and I thank the member for reading into the record from a copy of a letter which was sent to me — it is accurate to say that I am conducting no examination into the matter. But that doesn't mean that no investigation is being made into the 21 issues which are raised in this letter. Those questions are being investigated by the commissioner of corrections, and when those responses reach me — which should be very soon — then a decision will be taken as to what further action, if any, is required.

The operation of the swimming pool at Willingdon under the regulations which were in place a year ago required the presence of two members of the staff, at least one of whom was a competent swimmer and who also held a St. John's Ambulance certificate. Since the inquest the pool has been closed, and it will not be used until a staff member has been recruited who holds a Royal Life Saving Society certificate in order to ensure that we minimize, as much as is ever possible, the likelihood of any repetition of this unfortunate incident. In addition, when the pool is opened the other recommendations of the coroner's jury will be incorporated into the rules for the operation of that facility.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I did. They made recommendations which touched upon the testing of swimmers before they used the pool, the taking of regular head counts during the course of the swimming exercise — a kind of swimming roll-call — and the use of continuing poolside inspections. Those things should, as I say, to every extent possible prevent a recurrence of the event. It was an unfortunate accident, and one that we will endeavour to ensure does not arise again.

[ Page 6370 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General a couple of situations that exist within the constituency of Comox. I would like to refresh the Attorney-General's memory. I know that he was here when Scott Wallace, who then represented Oak Bay, gave one of the most moving speeches I've heard in this House, following his attendance at an inquest held in Courtenay after a 16-year-old girl hanged herself in the jail there. The jury recommended at that time that changes be made to those cells, which everyone involved in the field — police, judges, probation officers — agrees are deplorable.

A total of four hangings have now taken place in the Courtenay jail unit, and still there are no changes. I realize a new RCMP facility, which may be ready a year and a half to two years from now — maybe sooner, hopefully sooner — is under construction. But those cells in the current facility will apparently continue to be used. Once the prisoners have appeared before court and are awaiting sentence, they will be held in the same cells that are now in such a deplorable state that everyone in the area agrees something must done about them immediately.

I know the minister has been contacted by people in my constituency, letting him know that there is a problem in that these same cells are going to be used in the future, even after the new RCMP facility opens. I would like to know today, following four juries recommending that changes be made to the cells, what action the minister is going to take with respect to those cells, and how soon we can expect that action to take place. I don't think we can wait for another suicide to have some changes made to those cells. There are problems with those cells. Apparently the lighting is insufficient to put up a proper TV monitoring unit. Another thing is the staff shortage. The people required to look after the prisoners also have to answer the phones and do a million other things.

The second issue I want to raise very briefly with the minister this afternoon relates to the establishment of a small claims court registry in Parksville. There has been a volume of correspondence on this coming from the chamber of commerce in the area and from others. What happens now is that the people in the Parksville area who require the services of a court registry must travel to Nanaimo. Even though there are well over 200 cases a year out of the Parksville area, they have to make that trip down to Nanaimo in order to have the court services.

The correspondence indicates that the people who have looked into this problem for the minister certainly agree that this court needs to be established in the Parksville area. Unfortunately, it was there a number of years ago, but it was closed down and has not been reopened, even though the population increase has been tremendous in the meantime. I am wondering, based on the fact that a letter went out to the chamber of commerce, dated last August.... This comes from Mr. Sheppard, who indicates that yes, there is a need for a small claims court registry in the Parksville area; but they had no money in the budget for that year to be able to accomplish this. The need was there, we're told. They agreed that there should be a court registry, based on the volume of work that's being done out of the Parksville area through Nanaimo. But they didn't have the money that year. This letter was written way back in August of last year, so I'm wondering whether the minister has included funds in this budget so that the court registry can be reopened in the Parksville area to serve the population, which is growing very rapidly in that part of Vancouver Island.

MR. LEVI: I see the director of corrections is here, so I'll start with just a small question on that. Perhaps the director can let the Attorney-General know what has happened to the great saga of uniforms for the women prison guards at Oakalla. We don't necessarily have to go into that now, but I'd be interested to see if the Attorney-General knows about it. Has it been resolved? That's the major question. Obviously he doesn't even know what I'm talking about. That's okay, we can leave that until tomorrow. Has it been resolved? I'll leave it for another time, because I really want to get into something else.

Perhaps the director can brief the Attorney-General. This has been a quite long saga — whether women guards in prisons should wear uniforms, as per the recommendation of Madam Justice Proudfoot. They're having some trouble with the weight of the material, the kind of material, the cut of the material and the cost of the material. I must say that when some of the people first approached me and showed me the kinds of things that were proposed, I had the idea of taking particularly the skirt, which was made of 15-ounce material, rolling it up into a ball and tossing it over to the Attorney General. If he was able to stand up, I guess it would pass the test. Maybe the Attorney-General can tell us about that. Is he now fully armed and prepared to tell us if it has been resolved? What kind of uniforms are these women going to be wearing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, let me get this issue resolved. There was a joint union-management committee which looked into this question of the uniforms to be provided for the female staff. That committee reached a decision but the members of the staff objected to the decision that was made and the whole matter is under review. The cut of the garment is being restyled to meet the objections of the staff, and we hope that they will soon be satisfied.

To the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), the Comox lockup, as I'm sure the member will know, is a responsibility of the municipality or, alternatively, the RCMP. The Attorney-General's ministry does not supply those facilities. I've asked the Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of court services to look into this matter to see precisely what is being done with the new facilities that are being constructed, when they will be complete, why they're still going to use the old cells rather than replacing them and how soon this can be done. But the provision of the detachment facilities for the RCMP has never been the responsibility of this ministry.

With regard to the small claims in Parksville, this is scheduled for inclusion in the budget for 1982. We expect that you'll have a small claims registry in Parksville next year.

MR. LEVI: I'd like to ask the minister some other questions, starting with his new assistant deputy minister, Mr. Robin Bourne. I'd like the minister to tell us exactly what Mr. Bourne is doing in his new position. As I understand it, his job is to do liaison work with the RCMP and the 12 municipal police forces; he sits on the board of the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit; he liaises with the B.C. Police Commission; and he also does some research into various areas, as I understand it, in the juvenile area. As I understand it, Mr. Bourne is primarily going to be dealing with what heretofore has been a very loose policy area; that is, the matter of police policy. In my discussions with various people in the ministry we haven't had a police policy-making body in this province. I understand some of the ideas came out of the report on

[ Page 6371 ]

surreptitious entries, where it was quite clear there was some policy missing. There was also some clear law in respect to what was going on at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Surreptitious entries?

MR. LEVI: That's the break-ins. That's what the report was called. I don't know why it wasn't called the break-in report, but it was called surreptitious entries. Is the Attorney-General familiar with it? He's not familiar with it. "Report, Surreptitious Entries of Royal Canadian Mounted Police, British Columbia, 1972-76. Richard H. Vogel, Deputy Attorney-General, December 11, 1978." It dealt with some policy matters.

I want to go back to the area Mr. Bourne is dealing with. First of all, will the minister tell us how the job was advertised? What were you looking for when you looked for someone to fill this position? The reason I ask this is that Mr. Bourne is not a policeman and has no police experience. He has experience in a range of other areas, but not in the police area. I would like to know from the minister exactly what Mr. Bourne is doing. I'm quite sure the minister is aware of the public comment about the role that Mr. Bourne had when he worked for the federal government.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Bourne's specialty is in the area of analyzing information. He has expertise in the area of terrorism and some knowledge of domestic surveillance and counterinsurgency groups, and has been involved very clearly in security matters, as opposed to what we know as police matters. He's not a policeman and never has been. He was slotted in part in the RCMP hierarchy when he was doing his jobs in 1969, 1971 and 1972.

The question is: what were you looking for when you were looking for an associate deputy minister? He's got this position. What did you have in mind? Who else applied for the job, and what were you looking for? Those are the questions we need some answers to.

The other question is: can the minister confirm whether Mr. Bourne will be continuing a consultative role with the federal government on matters of security? The important thing is that from time to time a number of us have had something to say about this appointment. The minister now has an opportunity to clear the air and explain exactly what Mr. Bourne is doing and what he has in mind for the job. Why was Mr. Bourne picked for what is apparently a police policy area when he has no police background whatsoever? That doesn't mean to say that people without police backgrounds can't have some input into this kind of thing, but it's very useful when developing police policy. There are enough people in the community or across Canada who have had experience as chiefs of police or high-ranking RCMP officers, but it appears the minister has plucked somebody out of the security area, which is completely veiled in secrecy.

We don't always know exactly what Mr. Bourne was doing. We have some idea, and I'm going to cover that if I can get some answers from the Attorney-General.

What is Mr. Bourne doing? Why was he selected? Is he going to continue his consultative role to the government on matters of security? I can sit down if the minister is prepared to respond.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member raises a very important question, not the least important because of the misinformed, scurrilous and, I suspect, slanderous attack which has been launched against Mr. Bourne since he came to the ministry, by people who have not taken the time to assess what his previous employment was, or, for purposes which best suit their interests, choose to ignore Mr. Bourne's career.

As chief law officer of British Columbia the Attorney General has the responsibility for the general superintendence of the administration of justice. That involves him in a relationship with the police services which heretofore has been discharged by either the Deputy Attorney-General, the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General of the criminal law division, or by the two of them working together. In my view, this has not been the most effective way of ensuring that the delivery of police services in British Columbia and the development of policies associated with the delivery of those services can be organized. The responsibilities of the police and the nature of their duties is such that they must have a significant range of freedom to fulfil their role. Nonetheless, in our system of government it is essential that in the discharge of that responsibility there be a clear reporting function through to the chief law officer, in order that he may in turn respond to questions properly raised in this chamber with respect to the delivery of police services.

Under the Police Act we have the Police Commission. It clearly interfaces between the citizens and the police services of the province. It is inappropriate to use the Police Commission to interface between the government and the police services. The Police Commission, established by the statute, has an independent function to discharge. It is one of those agencies of government which should be seen, in its best interest, to function without executive-level interference. Therefore, in order to provide the Attorney-General with the relationship with the police services and to discharge his responsibility in that regard, I deemed it desirable that we fill a vacancy in the structure of the ministry, which was assistant deputy minister of police. It is a position which is found in other jurisdictions.

The responsibilities of that position are to recommend to the policy planning division of the ministry, and hence to the Attorney-General, appropriate legislative change, as may be indicated from time to time, affecting the operation of police services, and to correlate with the Police Commission those policy concerns which the ministry may have with regard to recruitment, training and promotion of police forces. Through the Police Commission this involves us in a relationship with the Justice Institute and that aspect of the institute's responsibility which deals with the matter of training. Again, there is to be a coordinating role, as between the ministry and the Police Commission in the development of the operational and management-audit capability which is the responsibility of the Police Commission under the Police Act. In the discharge of that responsibility because of the impact of such activities upon police forces and the delivery of services, there is a clear need that there be coordination between the ministry and the police services.

The other components of the ministry which touch upon police services are, of course, criminal justice, finance and administration in particular, and court services to an extent. By having in place a member of the executive committee of the ministry responsible for police services, those areas can be coordinated and the impact of police upon those other elements and those other elements upon the police service

[ Page 6372 ]

monitored. For example, there is currently ongoing a case management evaluation study. The police forces of the province are necessarily concerned with that study, because the police forces are the witnesses in those cases, and the management of those witnesses is a very important matter so far as the police are concerned. In addition, it is the police who in the first instance lay the charges that produce those cases. The proper evaluation of investigative material and the proper presentation of the case to Crown counsel is something which must be drawn together. That is an area in which the police must be involved, and the assistant deputy minister also must ensure that the elements of the ministry associated with that aspect are kept clearly informed as to the concerns which the police service may have.

In addition to that, it is important that there be a productive working relationship with other units: the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers, the commanding officer of E Division, municipal police boards and, of course, the several chiefs of police in each of the 12 municipal forces. It is that task that we have asked Mr. Bourne to undertake. The question is: how was he selected? There was no competition. Mr. Bourne was, of course, an assistant deputy minister. It is usual for those positions to be filled on the basis of competition.

The member inquired whether or not Mr. Bourne was still continuing any consulting work with the federal government. The answer is no. It is true that Mr. Bourne is working with the Ministry of Attorney-General under the executive interchange program in which provincial ministries are enabled to use personnel from the federal government and, likewise, the federal government has available to it personnel from provincial administrations.

Mr. Bourne is in that position for two reasons. We are developing the ADM police concept, and this provides us with the opportunity to do so. We are also encouraging Mr. Bourne to come here at this developmental stage in the hope that he will see fit, as he puts this new position together, to continue as a member of the public service of British Columbia outside of the executive interchange program.

Why was he chosen? As the member points out, Mr. Bourne is not a policeman, has never been a policeman and has never exercised police powers, but he has a highly recognized career as an army officer and as an administrator. He was, while employed in the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, associated with police services and was familiar with their organization, but his principal strength for us is his outstanding administrative ability, his analytical mind and a personality which enables him to deal with police officers at all levels as well as officials in the ministry with whom he must necessarily be associated.

There was a careful examination made in advance of the invitation to Mr. Bourne to come to this province because of concerns which have been raised on many sides with respect to his activities. We are satisfied that the claims made about Mr. Bourne and his activities are unfounded. He has been subjected to examination by House of Commons committees and by the McDonald royal commission, and there has been nothing with respect to his performance, as exhibited before such agencies, which will lead us to have the slightest concern as to whether or not he is an appropriate person to serve the ministry in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He was a security analyst in the Department of the Solicitor-General, but he did not develop information. He did not have an investigative role; his was one of analysis only, following which he reported to his minister as to the results of the analysis. Some of the claims made with respect to Mr. Bourne's activities are, as I say, completely unfounded.

MR. LEVI: I might say that had the minister taken the trouble to inform the public about some document that he was reading about the man's function, that would have been half the problem over with right in the beginning. He just told us now. The other thing is that the Attorney-General must be living in some obscure territory of cuckoo-land if he thinks that somehow the people in this province are not worried. I'm not talking about the beginning of his remarks when he referred to scurrilous rumours. There are a lot of facts about Mr. Bourne that are public facts. Of course we have a right to ask questions, more so probably on this side of the House and in this party than over there.

Part of Mr. Bourne's work dealt with an analysis of the leader of my federal party, Mr. Broadbent, in terms of a private file being kept on him. The work he did was an analysis and a recommendation relating to what was known as extra parliamentary organization. Of course there are concerns about this. The minister has not satisfied me that he is the best man for the job. He has no police background at all. We know very clearly what kind of background he has. He was an associate deputy minister in the Solicitor-General's department. His job was to run the police and security planning and analysis branch there. That branch was set up as a result of the royal commission in 1969, not on police matters but on security matters and how best to deal with them. I said at the beginning of my remarks that that is his area of expertise. Nothing that the minister has said has dealt with his area of expertise in terms of police matters.

Nobody is disagreeing with the minister about finally having an integrated policy towards police matters. It's long overdue in this province, and it's a good idea. Is this the right man? Why this man in light of what is known about him? You haven't allayed.... He appeared before the McDonald commission. He gave evidence with respect to what was known in 1977 as a blacklist which was making its rounds in Ottawa. It was forwarded by the then Solicitor-General, Mr. Goyer, and it involved 21 people who were employed in the federal government and who, they suspected, were members of an organization which was involved in extra-parliamentary organization.

Let me quote from some of the evidence that Mr. Bourne gave to the commission on November 21, 1979. He was talking about a letter that he got from the security service regarding what was called the EPO — extra parliamentary opposition. He says:

"Well, I have recently received a report containing information which the security service has accumulated about the concepts of extra parliamentary opposition — EPO — as interpreted by advocates of the New Left in Canada. The report also draws attention to the activities of various persons and groups, some of them employees of the federal government, who support the EPO concepts and who appear to have as their aim the destruction of the existing political and social structure in Canada."

[ Page 6373 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where's your shovel, Norm?

MR. LEVI: Oh, God, is he here? Why doesn't he go down the drain somewhere? Good lord, why don't you keep quiet?

With that introduction, he was then asked:

"Did you not feel that perhaps it might be misleading to anyone upon receipt of this letter, considering your last sentence in your second paragraph reads: 'For this reason I have attached a list of those we suspect of being engaged in or sympathetic to EPO activities in one way or another, with the recommendations that steps be taken to ensure that these people are being fully briefed as to their responsibilities for ensuring the security of government information?' "

It wasn't just an analysis role. That's something that he had to do. He also made recommendations on how to deal with these matters. He started to work in Ottawa during the period prior to the FLQ and the October Crisis. Subsequent to that, other things were involved. That's his background. The minister hasn't convinced me one bit, with all of that kind of background, that he can contribute that much in terms of police matters. The minister may know, or maybe he doesn't know, that civilians put into the RCMP — as he was, along with a couple of other non-RCMP personnel — are not always that welcome. It's a very enclosed group. He was there because he initially operated out of the Prime Minister's office. What has he got? What great talents? You say administration talents, but we're dealing with something else here. We're dealing with the development of police policy in terms of the Attorney-General's office. There have not been scurrilous accusations. Most of the discussion that has gone on made reference to his appearance before the justice and legal committee of the House of Commons in 1977 and his observations about what he did. It's very clear that his role in the government was sub rosa. All of a sudden he's come in from the cold, and he's now going to be responsible for police matters. Of course, over here we're thinking, or at least I'm thinking: is he going to be doing anything else? Are we suddenly going to get into some kind of domestic surveillance, which he knows quite a lot about? We ask those kinds of questions.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We know those kinds of surveillances do take place. They're generally done by a branch of the RCMP, not in terms of what the provincial government does. Here we have an individual that the minister has told us in a very fixed way is on that executive exchange program that exists between the provincial governments. As I understand it, it lasts for two years and then he goes, or, as the minister has indicated, if he works out they hope he will stay.

Let me refer you to an editorial in the Times-Colonist on March 24:

"The appointment of Robin Bourne as Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, police services, is causing anxiety among some NDP MLAs. Bourne is no ordinary bureaucrat; he's been involved in federal security and his background has some of the elements of a spy thriller." It has; he's an interesting man to talk to. "A government press release states that when Bourne starts early next month he'll be responsible for coordinating the various policing functions which fall within the A-G's jurisdiction...."

I just want to skip two paragraphs which deal with his biography.

"Ten years ago, in the wake of the October crisis in Quebec, then Solicitor-General Jean-Pierre Goyer called on Bourne to head the newly established security and research planning agency. At the time, Bourne rejected any notion the agency was Canada's answer to the CIA or the KGB. But Calgary Conservative Eldon Woolliams called Bourne's group 'a secret political force.' Trudeau responded that it was simply a 'small coordinating body, ' even though the agency kept files on 'potential subversives, ' with folders on such luminaries as national NDP leader Ed Broadbent.

"Perhaps Bourne is coming to British Columbia simply because he, like the rest of us, has figured out that this is the only place to live."

Yes, he has, because in my discussions with him he's been here before and he likes it. He likes the weather. I don't know why he likes the weather, but he says he does. However, he's here, and he's doing the job.

There is a long history over the last ten years of a range of activities that have been carried out by various police groups within police forces in respect to the whole question of security. In the name of security they've had domestic surveillance. That has been because there are concerns about whether some groups are getting together to challenge the democratic system. We had a debate earlier on about a group that appears to be challenging the democratic system. There are remedies for that which the government hasn't seen fit to use yet. The point is that presumably when the Attorney General weighed the matter of bringing him here he knew that there would be some discussion about Mr. Bourne and whether he is the most appropriate person to be here. We now find out that he does have a link back to the federal government. He is not simply an employee of this province; he's on an exchange program. Presumably he does have a continuing consultative role with the federal government. Perhaps the minister would comment on that. Is that clear? Are you his boss, or are they his bosses back there? Is he in the same position as the RCMP? You have no control over the RCMP. They're run from Ottawa. Is he in the same position? Is he, in fact, a fully fledged assistant deputy minister where his basic fealty is to you and not to somebody else?

The concern that I'm expressing relates to the kind of work that he's done in the past, and here he is getting into some other kind of work. Who is he responsible to? Just to you alone? Or is he responsible to the federal government as well? What is he doing? I asked if we have a consultant involved. Now we find out that he's on an exchange program. I know the exchange program takes place in other departments. It takes place in your department. His previous role was in an extremely sensitive area. It's still a sensitive area that you're dealing with. There are links back to the federal government, presumably to the department that he previously worked for, although, as I understand it, he is no longer a member of that department. If I'm correct, he had resigned and went back to school. Now what exactly is his relationship with the federal government?

The minister raised the question that he was on an exchange program. What is he on? Is he now a federal civil servant, and will he continue to be in the future, if he doesn't take your job? Is that what the minister is saying? That I'm not clear on, and perhaps the minister is not clear on that

[ Page 6374 ]

either. Perhaps he would explain to us exactly his position with your department and his relationship with the federal government. It's my feeling from what you've said that he still works with the federal government, that he's on loan for a couple of years, that he's coming here to deal with police matters, but he's a man with an incredible background in dealing with security matters. It's an awful waste of experience to send an individual like that to British Columbia, when he's not even a policeman, to be dealing with police matters. We've got all sorts of people in this province who could do that job.

Exactly what is his role and his relationship with the government? Is he employed by the federal government or by this government? Is he on an exchange program, or not? That's not clear. If he's on an exchange program, then he's in a direct relationship with the federal government. What is he doing? Just tell us that. You raised the issue of the exchange program, I didn't. I thought that's what he might be on, because I heard about the consultative role. Now I ask the Attorney-General who employs him. Is he employed by the federal government? With his background you're bringing him here to deal with police matters; you couldn't find anybody else who could do it. You had to go out on the firing line and pick the one man where there has been a great deal of suspicion, some of it incorrect; nevertheless, you left yourself open to that, and we'd like some answers. What is his relationship with your department and the federal government? That's a fair question, and I think you should answer it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thought that the member would never finish asking the question. Let me make it abundantly clear: Mr. Bourne is not in a consultative capacity with the federal government. Secondly, he is an employee paid for by the province of British Columbia, an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Attorney-General. He has the opportunity at the end of the two-year executive interchange of making a decision to return to the federal public service, leaving the public service and continuing with this work for the province of British Columbia, or indeed seeking some other employer. He is not working for the federal government. He is not consulting with the federal government. His responsibility is entirely to the Ministry of Attorney-General.

The member read very briefly from, I assume, a transcript of the McDonald commission inquiry. I trust he will realize that Mr. Bourne testified before the McDonald commission for some eight days, I believe. So his reading is pretty limited. He was involved, as I say, in the task of security analysis for the Solicitor-General of Canada. But the Solicitor-General of Canada has under his responsibility, through the federal RCMP service, matters of national security. That is not a responsibility which we discharge in the province of British Columbia. While there is a federal RCMP force here in this province, which may be involved in such activities, they do not fall under the command of a division but respond directly to headquarters in Ottawa. We do not operate a security service, we do not conduct security surveillance, and none of Mr. Bourne's responsibilities in the Attorney-General's ministry brings him into that area of responsibility.

Mention was made by the member about people in Ottawa and what was done with respect to them. As I said earlier, we made careful examination into the work Mr. Bourne carried out. He was not responsible for blacklists. He did not recruit agents. He did not maintain files on Members of Parliament, as has been ascribed to him by other people for whatever reasons may suit their purposes. That is not his responsibility. It was not his responsibility in Ottawa, and it is certainly not his responsibility here in British Columbia.

MR. LEVI: For the information of the minister, what I hold in my hand is the sum total of the transcript that's available from the McDonald commission. It says on the front: "The following evidence is excerpted from the in camera testimony given to this commission by Mr. Robin Bourne." Whatever he might have said, all I know is what he said in here, because that's all I'm allowed to have a look at.

The minister did touch on a subject which interests me in respect to his recitation about the role of security in this province. He said that security matters are dealt with by a group of individuals who have a direct report-line back to Ottawa. I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether, in fact, in his capacity as the Attorney-General, he is advised of any of these security matters. Or are these completely out of his area of responsibility? Let me say this to the Attorney General: if certain things are taking place in this province which relate to security surveillance, is he made aware of these? That is the kind of situation that took place some years ago, which ended in a report by his deputy minister relating to surreptitious entries.

What I want to ask the Attorney-General is this: is it possible that in this province individuals could sometimes be taking actions which could be construed as breaking the law, yet he is not aware of them because they are being conducted under the aegis of another group? Can the minister explain that? He's the one who raised it. He said security matters are dealt with from Ottawa, not here. Does that mean he's not privy to any of the things that go on, and that the things that go on are in the best interests of the province in terms of the application of the law? After all, when we viewed the coming of Mr. Bourne, we didn't make scurrilous implications — they may have come from other people — we made observations which have been made by a number of people in another parliament. It's simply a concern. I would ask the Attorney-General — he raised it: in terms of security matters, does he have any knowledge of these at all? Or is that something that he is not allowed to know?

The other question I have, because I'm not clear on what he says about the exchange program, is: does the exchange program mean that somebody from the federal government can come here for two years? Does that means that the individual who does come is an employee of the federal government as well, because after two years he can go back? Or has he somehow severed his connection with the federal government? He didn't explain that.

So there are two questions. One relates to his own knowledge of what goes on in terms of security matters. I don't want to know the particulars, just the policy. The second one is: if someone is on an executive exchange, does that mean he's still in the federal government, he's left, or he's on leave? Perhaps you would explain that a little bit. The last individual who worked in Consumer and Corporate Affairs returned to the federal government; Mr. Anglin worked here for two years and then he went back to the federal government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't propose to respond to the second question, because I've already dealt at length with that. I don't think the member is as obtuse as he

[ Page 6375 ]

would make us believe. I will simply say that the executive interchange program is carried out under contract between governments, The form of the contract used today is identical to the one that has been used in the past 15 years.

With regard to national security, no, the Attorney-General is not privy to matters of that kind. The federal force which functions in British Columbia, of course, does much more than security. It deals with customs, excise, immigration and national revenue matters as well. Those are strictly within the area of federal policing responsibilities. The Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia — and all the other provinces — is of course involved in any of those activities which result in breaches of the criminal law.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to another matter. Some reports have appeared in the press regarding a special investigation of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

No, no. Sit down. He's just dying to get into the debate. I've just given the Attorney-General an idea, by gosh. Look, the Attorney-General is really interested in examining that minister.

Let's get down to the question I want to ask the minister. About a month ago an article in the paper alluded to a CLEU report which, as I understand it, related to organized crime and business. As I understand it, the minister has not yet seen fit to release the report. Over the past four or five years during the Attorney-General's estimates — and I think even in this estimate — I've constantly asked what the minister or CLEU is doing in relation to examining what happens to money from criminal sources. I never had very much of an explanation from his predecessor. In fact, we had a statement by the predecessor in relation to organized crime that things really aren't bad enough to have an organized crime commission or any kind of investigation into this.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, we didn't get very far with him.

Four years ago the Quebec government did in fact issue a report on organized crime and business. They dealt to some extent with the whole question of laundering money. They traced the banks that the money went through. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General, first of all: are we likely to get the report so that we can deal with it? I once suggested to his colleague that if these reports are sensitive and somehow there's a matter of timing, from time to time there's no reason why there shouldn't be a briefing. That government has never briefed anybody on anything, I certainly appreciate that there are certain things which cannot be discussed at a particular time, because there may be some sensitive investigations going on. I once asked for a briefing on some matters and really never got a very satisfactory answer about it except a letter from the Deputy Attorney-General.

Is there a report which deals with organized crime in business? When are we likely to have an opportunity to look at it? Does it deal with matters that I've raised on a number of occasions in this House? Just what happens to the money that comes from criminal organizations? Has there been a study done on how it's laundered? This is not a new subject in the criminal world. This has been discussed and analyzed by a large number of people. There are no great secrets here. What we'd like to know is what you're doing about it. The United States has attempted through some legislation known as RICO to try and do something. They've not been terribly successful, but they had a go at it. They had a look at working through Internal Revenue. That's been closed off a little bit. They've looked at some kind of cooperation.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: He's noisier now when he's not the Attorney-General than when he was the Attorney-General. He wants to say more now than we ever got out of him when he had the job. It's incredible.

There is nothing secret about this. We'd like to know just what you're doing about it. Are we likely to get this report? You've got an operation that's been there for some six or seven years now. We've only had three reports. We had two reports in the last two years of the previous government, one report since this government has been in, and a suggestion that you have a report which deals with organized crime and business. The reason I've raised the subject is that it's a subject that should constantly be brought before the public. That's one of the ways that you have some success in coming to grips with this problem. Are we likely to get some observations about this from the Attorney-General? Is the report going to be released, and does it in fact deal with where the money goes? We know that the Quebec people did quite an analysis of this and that they, published an interesting report — albeit, only the beginning of a report, because most of the information they've received was in camera and therefore it had to be kept in a privileged situation.

Let's hear from the Attorney-General on what is happening in this particular area. Can he comment on the report and on what is specifically happening about a study and on where the money goes? We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars — almost $300 million in the drug field. This is money that goes into the stock-market and gets ripped off — loan-sharking operations and all of that, which are here, active and alive and well. We've had no statement from that government in a number of years on just what they're doing about these things. What are you doing about them? What possibilities are there of seeing this report that you talk about?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I think the member is under a misapprehension with respect to a report. There is no report on organized crime prepared for public dissemination. The report to which reference was made last November, I believe, and which I hope to be able to make available shortly, is a study into the RICO concept in the United States of America and an evaluation of its success, which I believe has been considerable. It contained recommendations as to how similar techniques can be employed in Canada, which, of course, would involve an amendment to the Criminal Code.

Last November the report was given to the Attorneys-General and Ministers of Justice of the 11 jurisdictions in Canada. It has been the subject of discussion by people in the criminal justice divisions of the provinces since that time, and it is my hope that it will be dealt with at the uniformity law conference this August and then recommended for consideration by the Minister of Justice of Canada in the ongoing project for the major amendments to the Criminal Code. The report deals with the distinction that exists between single transaction crime and entrepreneurial crime. As the member correctly points out, it would provide us with an opportunity to deal significantly with the profits from crime.

[ Page 6376 ]

MR. LAUK: Tomorrow, as the estimates continue, I wonder if the Attorney-General could report, if he is in a position to do so, on questions raised — in question period with respect to that ex-lawyer Prescott and the first land corporation. I asked some two months ago about an investigation.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR. HOWARD: Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be most helpful if the government House Leader would indicate at this point, before we vote on the motion, that leave will be granted for the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills and the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs to meet while the House is sitting. Otherwise there's no point in having the House meet tomorrow morning and overrun the meetings of those committees.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, had I still been recognized I would have got to that point. That is the intention. Rather than belabour the House tomorrow morning with that issue, I would ask this evening that the standing orders and private bills committee and public accounts committee be permitted to sit tomorrow morning while the House is in session, with leave of the House tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: We have a motion before us. Perhaps with the understanding that leave may be asked following the putting of the motion, we must proceed with the motion before us.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if we're going to support this motion to adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, it's only on the understanding that the private bills committee can meet to get on with the job of passing and bringing to this chamber the Vancouver Charter amendment, which has been referred by this Legislature to that committee.

If the House Leader indicates, as I think he has indicated, that the motion to allow that committee to meet only for tomorrow morning will only be asked for after this one is dealt with, it would be most inappropriate. That committee should meet continuously until they've completed their job, because their job is to deal with the Vancouver Charter amendments as requested by the city council — and to deal with them one way or the other. The committee should not be hamstrung by not being able to meet during the House's sitting times.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a debate that's perhaps in order under a different motion.

The motion before us is that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: So that there will not be any confusion, Mr. Speaker, I am requesting the leave of the House that the standing orders and private bills committee and the public accounts committee be granted leave of this House to sit tomorrow morning while the House is in session.

MR. SPEAKER: If the motion is that the rules be suspended and that leave be granted, you have heard the motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm tabled the annual report and the financial statements covering the year ending March 31, 1981, for the Urban Transit Authority.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.