[ Page 6413 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Civil Rights Protection Act (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 6413

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

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6413

Mr. Hall

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Levi

On vote 37: Fire Commission –– 6421

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 42: building occupancy charges –– 6422

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 42 –– 6422

Hon. Mr. Williams

Division on the amendment

On vote 42: building occupancy charges –– 6423

Mr. Ree

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Howard

On vote 43: computer and consulting charges 6423

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 43 –– 6423

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Hall

Mr. D'Arcy

Division on the amendment

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With us today on the floor of the House we have two very distinguished guests. Initially I would like to try a little multilingualism. Het is een bizonder groot genoegen voor my om een gast uit Nederland welkom te heten, de ambassadeur, His Excellency Mr. van Dijl, and the consul-general, Mr. van Swinderen. It's really a pleasure for me to welcome these guests, His Excellency the Ambassador for the Netherlands and the Netherlands consul-general in Vancouver. They are here visiting the Premier and various ministers to tell us about the trade opportunities that exist between the industrious Dutch and the Netherlands' favourite country, Canada. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, while we're introducing Dutch guests, I have another couple visiting from Holland, Jan and Ans Balk from Borne, who are in the florist and nursery business in Holland. They are touring here to see what the opportunities are in Canada. They too should be welcomed.

Introduction of Bills

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Civil Rights Protection Act.

Bill 32 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.

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. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I've just got one series of questions I want to ask the Attorney-General. We've been trying to find out from the Attorney-General the exact nature of his position, its duties, its terms of reference, the background and the unusual circumstances surrounding and having to do with Mr. Jessiman. We've asked the Attorney-General a number of questions about Mr. Jessiman in question period. I don't want to say that we have not had correct answers; I'm sure we've always had correct answers — that may be the trouble. But we certainly haven't had fulsome answers; we haven't had totally forthcoming answers about Mr. Jessiman. We haven't had follow-up answers, as promised by the Attorney-General. We haven't had answers when he has taken questions as notice to bring information back to the House.

Now that we've got the Attorney-General in his estimates, with no pressures of question period time or anything like that, I wonder if we could now explore with the Attorney-General all of the details surrounding Mr. Jessiman's appointment and exactly how Mr. Jessiman fits into the scheme of things. I am sure the Attorney-General can remember the questions that we've asked him; if not, I can refresh his memory.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Jessiman is employed under a consulting contract with the Ministry of Attorney-General. Under the responsibilities which he is to perform under that contract, he is heading up the division of the ministry known as legal services to government.

By way of explanation, may I say that prior to my time as Attorney-General, Mr. Jessiman, who is a member of the bars of both Manitoba and British Columbia, was engaged under a short-term contract to come to the province of British Columbia and look at the organizational structure of the Ministry of Attorney-General, and in particular the civil side of the responsibilities of that ministry. The contract at that time and now is in the name of Jesco Financial Services Ltd., a corporation in which Mr. Jessiman is the principal officer and shareholder.

The reason Mr. Jessiman and his company were engaged earlier and now is that, although he is a corporate lawyer of considerable distinction and experience, one of his strengths is in the area of legal office management. He is very knowledgeable with respect to the modern techniques that are available to be employed in the organization of a legal business, so that he has a twofold value: he is an experienced solicitor in the corporate and commercial field; and, equally important, he is a man who is very knowledgeable with regard to the efficient conduct of a legal firm's responsibility.

When I became Attorney-General, the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General in charge of the civil side, Mr. Richard Bird, had been engaged from the private sector. He came under an arrangement whereby he would take the position of Assistant Deputy Attorney-General for a limited period of time. He exceeded the time that he was willing to contribute to the public service, but he felt that he was in fact obliged by reason of personal circumstances to return to private practice. We then set about searching for a replacement.

When I became Attorney-General I canvassed the prospect of bringing to government highly qualified legal practitioners who might be able to give to government two, three or four years in order that they might bring their expertise. During their time in government they might benefit themselves by the experience that would be available to them in the Ministry of Attorney-General. This is a very difficult thing to do. It's difficult to get highly qualified lawyers to break into their practising careers and give the benefit of their experience to the public service. However, from time to time we have been fortunate to obtain such services. I need only remind the members that the present chairman and some of the vice-chairmen in the Labour Relations Board are highly skilled lawyers in the labour relations field. They have responded to the call of government by making their time available under contract to serve as chairmen and vice chairmen of the Labour Relations Board and in other capacities as well. The concept is in no way unique.

In order that we could bring the legal services to the government division of the ministry and find the best qualified person for this purpose, we spoke to Mr. Jessiman. We asked him whether he could come to British Columbia on a term basis to undertake the leadership of that division of the ministry and to bring with him his skills, not only as a lawyer but also his organizing and administrative techniques.

[ Page 6414 ]

Mr. Jessiman acceded to our requests after considerable discussion. We entered into a contract with him which brought him to British Columbia. His company is the contractor that has the obligation under the contract to make his services available to us. That contract calls for the payment of approximately $5,400 a month. The total cost of the contract is what we would be obliged to pay in order to have acquired a person of his competence to take the position of Assistant Deputy Attorney-General. Since it is a contract with Jesco Financial Services, of course Mr. Jessiman is not able to be appointed to that particular post by order-in-council. It is my hope that following the conclusion of the contract Mr. Jessiman will see fit to consider accepting a formal appointment as Assistant Deputy Attorney-General to head up the legal services to government. I must say that in the time he has been with us, I have been encouraged to believe that when this contract has been concluded, Mr. Jessiman may be inclined to accept such an offer. There is no question about his skills as a lawyer. He has already made a very major contribution in both the organization of the legal services to government division of the ministry and in the advice he has been able to provide to several of the ministries in respect of the very significant civil matters with which they have to deal.

In coming to British Columbia, Mr. Jessiman, as part of the contract, was accorded the same privilege available to others who join the public service, with regard to his moving expenses. A question was asked in that respect as well. About $15,000 was paid to assist Mr. Jessiman in coming to British Columbia. Examination of such payments indicates that that is not at the top but within the range of expense allowances which are paid to other persons, whether they come from outside this province to participate in government service or are moved within this province. That's standard practice in the government service.

Questions have been raised about the fact that Mr. Jessiman periodically returns to Winnipeg. I wish to assure members that this was part of the arrangement made with him during the negotiations for his agreement. He is not — I repeat, he is not — practising law in Manitoba, but his company still has two or three management consulting contracts. He indicated to us that in coming for the period of two years he would of necessity be required to return to Winnipeg periodically in order that the responsibilities of those contracts could be performed.

Mr. Jessiman, however, has more than met all of the obligations that are cast upon him under the contractual arrangement. The fact that he organizes his time in such a way that he can be absent for four or five days each month to attend to other matters and to the winding up of other matters does not in any way interfere with the discharge of his responsibilities. Mr. Jessiman is a prodigious, tireless worker. He works Saturdays, Sundays and late evenings in order to do what he is required to do under the obligations which he has undertaken. He discharges those to the letter. The fact that he does so is not only a credit to his performance of the obligations which are cast upon him but is also of tremendous benefit to the ministry and to the public service.

MR. HALL: Thank you for that full reply, most of which I'm sure we could have had in answer to the first questions we asked last month during question period. It's interesting to compare the answer to the ones we did get in question period. In question period the minister told us that Mr. Jessiman is not an assistant deputy minister, which he now confirms. He told us during question period that he takes a senior position in the legal services to government division of the ministry, which is on the civil side, and in that respect he may be seen to be a consultant. When I pressed the point with the minister and asked if we had hired a consultant, he said no, we had hired an individual. Today he says we have hired a consulting firm.

He goes on to confirm — which he wouldn't do before — the other question I asked in May, that he had indeed hired the firm of Jesco Financial Services. When I asked in question period a month ago if we had spent any money with Jesco, he said he wasn't able to bring that information to the House that day, but he'd be happy to take the question as notice and bring the information back. He confirms in his answer today that we have hired Jesco Financial Services — Mr. Jessiman — and he's pleased with the performance.

We hired a company. We made a contract with a company, a contract which he told my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, he wouldn't table in the House.

I asked the minister if Mr. Jessiman had already received a relocation cheque to cover his expenses in moving from Manitoba to here. The Attorney-General said that Mr. Jessiman was paid relocation expenses in accordance with standards that applied to the transfer of senior officials of government, within the province and from outside. How does he square one with the other? How do you pay a relocation cheque to a company? How do we know? If he wants to table the contract, I'd like to know how you can pay relocation expenses to a company. If he's working for a company, he's working for a company. If he presents a bill, pay the bill. No one is arguing about that, but how can you get relocation expenses when you're working for a company? I just don't understand that. I asked those questions in May, and we got the response from the minister that he would bring back information to the House; he didn't. That's in keeping with the performance of this minister; he doesn't bring back information to the House.

Last year during estimates — approximately 12 months ago — I raised the question of the treatment of picketers in the courtrooms of this province, and the minister again promised he would look into it. He promised the second member for Surrey he would contact him, examine the Blues and Hansard, go through them and check not only the debate on estimates of the Attorney-General but debates of the year before, when the previous Attorney-General made the same claim — that he was going to look into the question of those picketers who were handcuffed — and respond. Both ministers will say anything to get the time on the clock passed in estimates.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's not true.

MR. HALL: It's true, Mr. Member. You look at estimates and you will see it — any soft answer that turneth away the wrath. I'm just not playing that game any more. I'm saying to the Attorney-General that he could have answered the questions on Jessiman in question period, and he chose not to do so. Now we've got a fulsome report during estimates from the member, and we'll be coming back asking further questions about the hiring of Jesco Financial Services as soon as we examine the transcript of today's debate.

MR. HANSON: The remarks that I'd like to make now in the Attorney-General's estimates concern the proposed move of the RCMP headquarters from the capital city. I think

[ Page 6415 ]

Victoria is going to have the dubious distinction of being the second — if not the only — capital in the country where no RCMP are headquartered. This government doesn't have a very strong record when it comes to defending the capital against the federal government. The federal Liberal government, to which the Attorney-General formerly had an allegiance as a Liberal....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I can appreciate your line of questioning, but the Chair has some difficulty in relating a federal decision to the administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General. If you could possibly relate your remarks to this minister's responsibility.... Otherwise, you can see how the scope of debate would be virtually limitless.

MR. HANSON: In British Columbia the RCMP is under the direct supervision of the Attorney-General. The federal government, in consultation with this Attorney-General, is preparing to move the headquarters of the RCMP to Vancouver. There are federal-provincial negotiations taking place. If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, the federal government appears to think that Canada stops at Tsawwassen. Over the last period of time the CBC constructed a building in Victoria at a cost of $5 million and then didn't follow through on it. CN Express, which was making money here, is going to be moved. The weather ships.... Here we have 250 people in an administrative capacity in RCMP headquarters on Nanaimo Street in Victoria being moved to Vancouver.

I'd like to read into the record a number of records which have gone to the Attorney-General on this matter. One is from the non-police employees, the Public Service Alliance personnel, with the Solicitor-General's component who work for the RCMP. They made the following well-thought-out submission to the Attorney-General. It is dated March 31, 1981:

"Sir:

"The structure of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters in British Columbia has undergone several reorganizations in the past: (1) two separate headquarters, one in Vancouver and one in Victoria; (2) two separate districts, one in Vancouver and one in Victoria, with a secretariat and policy centre in Victoria.

"These reorganizations have failed" — this is the statement from the employees themselves, who know best what the effectiveness of their own capability is — "and yet another reorganization method has been announced: relocating the division headquarters to Vancouver and abandoning Victoria. We appreciate the necessity for restoring the single division concept, notwithstanding which we deplore the most recent proposal for the following reasons:

"1. The failure of the RCMP and the Solicitor General of Canada to give valid reasons that relocation to Vancouver will improve policing in B.C."

There has been no cost-benefit analysis and no formal study to indicate to the people of Victoria or the province of British Columbia that it would in fact save money or be more effective to move the headquarters to Vancouver.

"2. The failure of the RCMP and the Solicitor General to prove that relocation to Vancouver will not be another costly and non-productive reorganization experiment."

As with the CBC building, vacated before it was occupied, the RCMP have constructed their own building on Nanaimo Street at their own expense — I believe it cost $10 million — and they're going to abandon that building. Then they'll probably rent space or purchase a building in Vancouver. What kind of logic is that?

"3. The failure of the RCMP and the Solicitor General to provide details of a study to determine the cost-effectiveness of moving a large administrative function to a congested and extremely high-cost metropolis.

"The petition presented to you today, sponsored by the public service employees of E division and signed by concerned citizens, states additional reasons for retaining the headquarters of the RCMP for B.C. in its capital city of Victoria."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I have allowed the member an opportunity to put forward the particular reference material he wanted to read into the record, but qt this stage I must remind the member that we can only deal with the administrative responsibility of the minister. In this case it is the Chair's opinion that the matters now being canvassed by the member fall outside the administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General. The matters referred to by the member are those taken by a federal ministry and not by the Ministry of the Attorney-General. I'm sure that the member appreciates the concern that the Chair has. We really would have an unlimited debate in virtually any ministry if we were to bring in federal decision-making powers that affect any particular provincial ministry.

MR. HANSON: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out that the RCMP and the Solicitor General are having discussions with the Attorney-General about the matter that I am canvassing at the moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, hon. member, but the actual administrative decision is not within the purview of the provincial Attorney-General. It is in fact a matter of federal decision, and in that way is beyond the scope of the debates presently before us in our provincial committee.

MR. HANSON: It is clear that the RCMP and the Solicitor-General do not embark upon administrative changes without the approval of the provincial Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair really appreciates the dilemma that the member is facing in trying to make his point. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the Chair to limit debate to the administrative responsibility of the minister who is presently before us. I would appreciate the member's cooperation, knowing that it is difficult for the member to bring his position forward on behalf of his constituency. We must abide by our standing order guidelines.

MR. HANSON: Apparently the confusion at this point is the fact that I haven't proceeded to the main point, which is that policing is going to deteriorate in British Columbia as a result of the move. It is my contention that administratively we are better served with the headquarters here in Victoria, close to the Attorney-General's ministry. The police will then be more effective and more efficient. The RCMP and the federal Solicitor-General have not demonstrated that my

[ Page 6416 ]

contention is not correct. I am addressing the Attorney-General with the concerns of my constituency, which is an administrative centre that needs those jobs and needs the provincial government to function effectively. Policing will deteriorate as a result of the move. My earlier correspondence that I read into the record from the Public Service Alliance indicates that policing will be less effective as a result of the move. Surely that is within the purview of this Attorney-General.

My contention is that knowing those facts, the Attorney-General has not fought hard enough with Mr. Kaplan, the federal Solicitor-General, to indicate to him the concerns of British Columbia in maintaining an effective police force here in British Columbia. It is an important matter, Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure you appreciate. I'm saying to the minister responsible that the negotiations have not been tough enough. He has not been tough enough with Mr. Kaplan and has not conveyed the importance to the effectiveness of our police force here of maintaining that close liaison and proximity here in the city. With 250 positions, that payroll, with its multiplier effect in the community, has great impact here in Victoria. As I pointed out to you, we are losing a large number of federal jobs.

This minister does have a say. There is no way that a federal Solicitor-General would run roughshod over a provincial Attorney-General. To say in the strictest possible terms that Mr. Kaplan has the final decision, I believe to be correct. Mr. Kaplan would not run roughshod over the Attorney-General. I cannot believe that to be so. I think the Attorney-General has not been tough enough.

I want the Attorney-General to respond to my comments, to indicate what the present negotiations are and whether he has indicated to Mr. Kaplan and to the new deputy commissioner for British Columbia what his objections are.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I share the very real concerns that the member has with respect to this decision to move the RCMP headquarters. I have made this statement publicly on many occasions. He is in receipt of letters from persons associated with the RCMP headquarters here. I'm sure he has also received letters from the mayor, the chamber of commerce, and others in Victoria who also oppose this move. I have discussed this matter with the Solicitor-General; I have discussed it with the commissioner of the RCMP; I have written on numerous occasions — indeed I have implored — the Solicitor-General to defer the decision he has made in this respect until he has completed a thorough socio-economic study into the impact this move will have upon this city and upon the persons employed in the RCMP. In the final analysis, however, as I have also said publicly, the decision with respect to the location of the RCMP headquarters in this or any other province fails to the responsibility of the Solicitor General as the minister under the RCMP act. The regulations under the RCMP act make it perfectly clear that that decision is his and his alone. He has made that decision in spite of the representations which I have made and those which have been made by individuals, the mayor and other senior people in the Victoria area.

The member should be aware that the organization of the RCMP is a matter of internal management. The right of the RCMP and the Solicitor-General to deal with matters of internal management without the control of the Attorney-General of any province has recently been confirmed in the Supreme Court of Canada. Not with respect to the move of this headquarters but in an another issue it has been made perfectly clear that the internal management of the RCMP rests solely with that force and with the Solicitor-General.

I might say that I do not accept the member's criticism that I haven't tried hard enough, because I have urged them — in public, by communication and in meetings with the Solicitor-General and his officials — to defer this decision; but in the final instance it is theirs to make.

With regard to the concept of policing, I disagree entirely that it will deteriorate as a result of this move. In the present situation the commanding officer of E division and other senior officers associated with headquarters of the RCMP are situated here in Victoria, and they function on a secretariat basis. The principal operations of the RCMP and all the senior officers in charge of the several branches of E division are located on the mainland. There is some significant difficulty in the organization and management of E division, both on the two-district concept and with the commanding officer and his senior officials being separated from the source of the principal activities of the force.

This same problem was identified in the province of Quebec with their provincial force. At one time the commanding officer of that force maintained his principal offices in the city of Quebec, but the main elements of the force were in Montreal. Several years ago, recognizing the administrative problem that this created, the headquarters of the Quebec Provincial Police were moved to Montreal, so that the commanding officer could be there on the spot and with the people with whom he must deal every day.

It just so happens that in the other provinces the capital cities are the principal urban centres. It is for that reason and that reason alone that the RCMP headquarters are found in the capital cities.

MR. HANSON: I don't know whether I can conclude from the minister's remarks that there will be no move until there is a full public report on a cost-benefit analysis of the move. I want to indicate to the House, however, that I think it is very important that we understand the responsibility and power of the Attorney-General with respect to this matter.

I have with me the current provincial policing agreement. I think it's important to read just a couple of clauses into the record to indicate who will ultimately have the responsibility when the decision is made. Clause 4(2) says: "Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted as limiting in any way the powers of the Attorney-General relating to the administration of justice within the province." If it can be demonstrated that the effectiveness of the police service is reduced in any way by such a proposed move, then clearly the Attorney-General would have the authority to oppose that move, because he is protected by clause 4(2), which says that his powers in this regard are not limited in any way. Clause 7(1) says: "Numbers and locations of detachments shall be mutually agreed to by the Attorney-General and by the commissioner of the RCMP." I think it is very important to understand that. My earlier comment that I don't think the commissioner or the Solicitor-General would run roughshod over the Attorney-General is reflected clearly in the language of that clause which states that the numbers and locations of detachments shall be as mutually agreed to by the Attorney-General and the commissioner of the RCMP.

Clause 7(2) says: "Additional detachments shall be established by mutual agreement of the Attorney-General and the commissioner, provided that additional members and accommodation are available." But I think the most significant part

[ Page 6417 ]

of the contract is back in clause 12(7), which states that the commissioner of the RCMP shall submit to the Attorney-General, on or before the first of November of each year, a statement of the estimated cost based on the current fiscal year forecast of expenditures of provincial police services to be borne by the province the next fiscal year. My contention is that the problem Victoria is facing in the prospect of losing this administrative headquarters is tied in with the negotiation of a policing agreement. It is tied up with cost fights and bargaining-table proposals on overall policing costs for the province of British Columbia.

We have read some extremely strong statements in the press recently by Mr. Kaplan, the Solicitor-General, threatening the provinces with all sorts of actions if they don't come into line on policing costs. I think it's time that the Attorney-General started coming on like Tom Mix and telling Mr. Kaplan that we want a first-class police force in British Columbia — that we're going to headquarter the administrative section in Victoria, and we're going to pay our fair share, as every other province should. I think that is the position we should be taking. We want the Attorney-General to start playing Tom Mix, not rolling over and letting the capital city of the province of British Columbia take it between the eyes by having the administrative headquarters away. I want the Attorney-General to get a lot tougher in this negotiation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in response to what the member said at the conclusion, we do have a first-class policing service in the province of British Columbia. We have it because of the calibre of the forces in the 12 municipalities that operate their own police forces, and we have it because of the distinguished service which we've been getting from the officers and the men of E division. The member referred to provisions of the contract touching upon detachments. There is no question about the establishment of the location and number of detachments in the province. That requires consultation with me, but the headquarters of the RCMP is not a detachment. That should be quite clear. On the question of contract negotiations, yes, Mr. Kaplan has made a number of public pronouncements in which he is obviously shaking a big stick.

There are negotiations being conducted between the federal government and the governments of eight provinces and two territories. The provincial and territorial ministers do not take the position that they are prepared to bargain in the press. They do their bargaining at the table with Mr. Kaplan, and it is for that reason that we have not responded in kind to the remarks that Mr. Kaplan has made. He may think he's shaking a big stick, but the perceived threats he is making have had no effect whatsoever upon the negotiations. Indeed, they have had just the opposite effect, because the positions taken by the provinces and territories are becoming more rigid as a result of what he is saying. Unfortunately, what Mr. Kaplan has been saying is having a serious demoralizing effect upon the officers and men of the RCMP who serve in the contracting jurisdictions.

I expect these negotiations will be concluded some time in the next two or three weeks, and I think that the results of the negotiations will indicate that the provinces and territories have taken the correct position.

MR. HANSON: I'm going to leave that particular subject and just indicate to the minister that I'll be watching his performance on this matter very closely over the ensuing months.

One other subject I would like to briefly canvass with the minister is again a tough one in terms of the jurisdictional aspects. I'm going to indicate to the Chair clearly how it's appropriate to be discussing this matter. In previous Attorney-General estimates, I have raised my concern regarding the number of native people who are presently incarcerated in British Columbia. It bears no relationship to the population which they do represent in the province, which is less than 1 percent. For example, of the female inmate population in prisons in British Columbia, the native Indian women make up approximately 20 percent. The minister is responsible at the provincial level. In his ministry he does have a small section as a liaison to deal with matters of importance to Indian people in British Columbia. It is under that section that I am addressing my remarks.

I think the facts speak for themselves. The average life expectancy of an Indian male in British Columbia is roughly 35 years. I think most people in B.C. are not aware of that fact, and they would be shocked to know it. For the females it is roughly the same. The incidence of death through accidents is very high. The main cause of death for Indian people is not disease, as it is in the non-Indian population — heart disease, etc. — it is accidents. People die in their homes as a result of fires. In some northern communities their homes are poorly insulated, they stoke up a fire, the house burns in the middle of the night, and the entire family dies. People die from drownings and from walking on railroad tracks between communities; because they occupy parts of British Columbia separate and apart from the normal development that has historically occurred, their transportation is poor, so they often walk highways, rail lines and trestles, take boats, and so on.

The point I am trying to make is that there is a whole series of facts and criteria, which one doesn't have to explore through extensive research, that paint a terrible picture of life as an Indian person in British Columbia. As I have an interest in this area, I've watched very carefully the performance of the Attorney-General with respect to attempting to initiate discussions with the federal government, which holds supreme responsibility in this matter, to try to initiate programs that would actually do something for Indian people. I don't see anything, and it's very sad and very tragic.

On the question of incarceration, it is known that many of the offences are extremely minor. Many people who are incarcerated have a poor knowledge of the English language, if they speak English at all. If we looked at some of the institutions in Prince George and some of the northern areas, I think we would find that many people are being incarcerated when there could be some much more sophisticated and humane solution. It's a culture-of-poverty problem. I'm not suggesting it's a simple problem at all. It's really got to involve a priority in the ministry which does not exist at the present time.

I'm asking the minister if for once he would look at expanding his section to actually address some of these serious problems, initiate discussions with the federal government and demand some action. I'd be interested in the minister's comments with respect to what he feels is the reason for the incarceration in jails of large numbers of Indian people. Could he give me some kind of explanation — philosophical, technical or administrative — of the cause of this terrible situation?

[ Page 6418 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the response to the last question as to the cause has already been given by the member in his earlier remarks. There is no question that the Indian people in British Columbia, and indeed throughout this country, for all of the time of Confederation have been disadvantaged in the true sense of the word. As a consequence, the conditions under which they live are not conducive to meeting the challenges of modern society. In particular, when the Indian person comes into contact with the non-Indian community in urban centres, that Indian person is at a most serious disadvantage. He falls into conduct which brings him into conflict with the law at a rate far in excess of that experienced in other elements of society. It is all part of the same root cause of the serious social disadvantage under which our Indian people find themselves in this country today. It's a matter of shame which should bear heavily upon every Canadian.

With regard to that particular problem, we are working with organizations such as the Native Court Workers and Counselling Association, who have performed in an exemplary fashion in trying to assist the Indian people in conflict with the law, in just the problems that the member identifies: understanding exactly where they are, and why they are in the position that they are insofar as the criminal courts are concerned and providing them with skilled persons who can assist them in those difficulties.

With regard to the larger problem, officials who work with me in the native Indian field are currently participating in a series of discussions, meetings and negotiations that are taking place with other provincial jurisdictions which are experiencing exactly the same problems. This is preparatory to a meeting which we hope will be held this fall with the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, to deal in a positive way with the kinds of programs which should be introduced, leading over time — because it will take time to resolve this problem — towards a solution to the condition in which the Indian people find themselves today. There is a responsibility on the part of all the provinces in this important exercise, but there's no question that the principal approach must be taken through the federal government. I say that not only because it is the federal government's legislative jurisdiction under the BNA act: in the history of this country, rightly or wrongly, the Indian people have looked to the federal government as the government responsible for them. In dealing with Indian organizations and bands in this province, I have found that they are not as responsive to initiatives which may come from the province as they are to initiatives that come from the national government. It's a matter of history and tradition for them.

Therefore, in resolving this problem, I think the 11 governments of Canada must work cooperatively, so that the federal government can deal directly with the Indian people and get this thing resolved with the support of all the provinces. The problems are similar in each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction has problems which are special to it. Taken together, the problem is the condition under which the Indian people live in this country. It is therefore the responsibility of all governments together to seek the solution.

MR. HANSON: I just have a couple of very brief concluding remarks to make. I think you could describe or characterize this situation as an international disgrace. I read with interest — and the Attorney-General may have seen this as well — that the French government is minting a special coin in honour of the Indian cultures and art of British Columbia. I think that is a testament to the high regard on the international scene for the cultural accomplishments of the Indian people. Yet at home what happens? How is it regarded?

Last year there was a presentation of Indian art from the Provincial Museum that went from our own capital city here to Edinburgh. It was called "The Legacy," a very fitting name. The people of Edinburgh and the tourists of Europe visiting Edinburgh were lined up around the block to witness and view the beauty and high cultural achievements of the people of Prince Rupert, Masset, Bella Coola, Mission, Yale and so on.

We have a special place in our responsibility in Canada, because not only are over half of all the Indian languages and Indian cultural groups of Canada situated in British Columbia, but looking at the population of Indian people in Canada, by far the largest proportion is situated here in British Columbia. We have a special role to play, Mr. Attorney-General, and a special responsibility. I think that if the people of France and the people of Edinburgh were to know the real situation and some of the facts that I outlined for you in my earlier remarks — the objective situation in which the Indian people find themselves — they would be struck dumb with disbelief that this is actually happening to people whom they have so honoured by minting a special coin — the people of France — in tribute to the Indian art of British Columbia.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, twice now in two days the Attorney-General has delved into history, presumably for some kind of interpretation of and rationalization for his inactivity. Yesterday he told us about racism in the province in 1925. I'm afraid that he does not have an understanding of that particular situation — at least, not from the remarks he made yesterday. If he knows his history, he will know that in those days there were two competing political parties that were trying to outbid one another in being racist. That's what happened in those days. Then in 1935 we had a Liberal Party pamphlet, put out in Vancouver, which continued to exacerbate the situation. Then we had the 1941 attack on the Japanese people.

But in respect to the Indians, when he says that the Indian people look to the federal government, that's not what he said in 1975 when the government of the day made an agreement with the Indian people that they would negotiate the cutoff lands. That was the first agreement ever made by a government of this province with Indian people to resolve an issue that could have been resolved within this province.... He agreed with that when we made the statement in June 1975. He got up, and his leader got up, and they thought it was wonderful. Then, in January 1976, with the high hopes that he had — and certainly he left the Indians with high hopes.... Nothing has happened since then. In the six years they've been in government, they've done nothing. He is not an advocate who speaks on behalf of the Indians. We have the Nishga in the north who are having a confrontation with Amax about their whole livelihood. He's done nothing to assist in that matter, nothing in terms of a public inquiry.

This brings me to some remarks that I want to make on behalf of my colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who had to go to his riding. This is in respect to an attempt that he's been making to resolve an issue with the minister. He spoke in the minister's estimates in August 1980 — less than a year ago — and he said:

[ Page 6419 ]

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

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

The Attorney-General in replying said:

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

All right, there was a willingness to discuss. My colleague informs me, and he gave me a copy of the letter he wrote to the minister on September 5, 1980:

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"During the legislative estimates I have raised the matter of the Port Simpson cannery. At that time, we both committed ourselves to meet with members of the co-op after the salmon season. I will make myself available at any time, but I would appreciate as much advance notice as possible, so I can plan my itinerary.

Yours truly, Graham Lea."

The minister replied September 11, 1980, but it was his secretary:

"In the absence of the Attorney-General I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated September 5. Please rest assured that your letter will be brought to Mr. Williams' attention upon his return."

Mr. Lea wrote again on October 29, 1980:

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"Re: Meeting with relation to Port Simpson cannery.

"I have talked yesterday with Bob Exell from your department, and from that conversation I gleaned that there might be a misunderstanding between you and me in regard to the proposed meeting that we agreed upon during the last legislative session.

"Mr. Exell left me with the impression that it would be a closed meeting between ourselves, the management committee of the original cooperative and the principals of the new cooperative to discuss the cannery's future. My impression was that the meeting would be an open one, where members of the original cooperative would be in attendance, so that they could be brought up to date on what the cooperative has carried out since the management committee was appointed and ascertain the current status of the operation and what government has planned for the future. It is my understanding that the above was what you had in mind. Could you please let me know the type of meeting you have planned, as I may have misunderstood Mr. Exell."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Attorney-General replied on November 13:

"I have your letter of October 29 with regard to the proposed meeting in Prince Rupert or Port Simpson to discuss the future of the cannery. I regret there may be some misunderstanding as to the purpose of this meeting. It is my view that the participants would be the Port Simpson band council, the shore workers and those fishermen from Port Simpson or elsewhere who have an interest in making a successful venture an Indian fishing cooperative.

"There is, in my opinion, no value in convening a large meeting in prince Rupert for the purpose of trying to assign blame for the problems of the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative, which became evident as early as 1975. The general manager was dismissed, and you and Norm Levi were approached for additional financing to rescue an operation already in serious difficulty.

"The years have shown the cannery operation will succeed only if the native fishermen are determined to give it their ongoing support regardless of the pressures upon them to deliver their fish elsewhere for the sizeable short-term benefits which they find so immediately attractive.

"It was to this end, as you know, that some of the fishermen in the area organized the Port Simpson Native Cooperative earlier this year, pledging their own capital. But while the new cooperative was begun enthusiastically. I understand it was able to attract only four seiners and about 25 gill-netters. In the face of all this we must determine whether the motivation is there, or ever will be there, to make this cannery succeed."

He has one more chapter. but I'll go on to the next letter. That, we must bear in mind. was in November. The member for Prince Rupert wrote on December 17:

"I'm very pleased that you are not excluding anyone interested in the cannery from the proposed meeting. I'm concerned, though, that the meeting you promised would take place after the salmon season did not take place. I urge that you schedule a meeting at the earliest opportunity."

What we're attempting to do is to catalogue a very frustrating situation, particularly from the point of view of the Indian people and the member for Prince Rupert.

This is a letter from the minister, dated January 13, 1981:

"I thank you for your letter of December 17 with regard to the cannery at Port Simpson. My office has today received the information I requested some time ago from the Port Simpson native co-op with respect to its operation during the last salmon season, and thus I am at last in a position to meet with the principals in Port Simpson or Prince Rupert.

"My schedule will not permit me to undertake such a meeting until the second half of February. If this is convenient to you, please let me know."

The member wrote back offering nine dates in February that he could be present at a meeting. The member asked me to say to the minister that nothing has happened, no meeting has taken place and no resolution of that is there at all, and I

[ Page 6420 ]

undertook to do that for the member. I would be interested to know from the minister if he can tell us what his plans are to accommodate the request the member made almost a year ago with respect to a broad discussion on the subject with the people interested — himself, the member and anyone else who should be present. I would appreciate it if the minister could give us an answer on that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With regard to the Port Simpson cannery, it is still my intention to meet with the member for Prince Rupert, those persons who are directly involved in the cannery and any others who may have been associated with the co-op in its early days and wish to understand precisely what has taken place and what the future may hold for that operation.

I regret that the meeting has not been held, but as the member knows, other responsibilities sometimes intervene, and it is not always possible to arrange a meeting at a time when other people who must be in attendance — I'm referring specifically to those fishermen who have continued to support the co-op — can themselves be available. I've looked at dates, and I was hoping to have a meeting very shortly. Now I'm advised that because of the onset of the fishing season the fishermen, who must be engaged in that activity, cannot be present at the meetings.

I ask the member to convey to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that it is my intention to have such a meeting, and I am now in the final stages of producing the material necessary to support such a meeting and to complete the explanations of questions which will probably be asked.

May I just say one thing about the question of cutoff lands? The member is entirely wrong to say that nothing has happened in the past five or six years. Significant advances have been made in the negotiations, and each of the 22 Indian bands involved has before them a position from the province which they find completely acceptable. The difficulties and delays have arisen because some of the bands are not satisfied with the contribution the federal government is making towards a settlement. As a result the 22 Indian bands have decided not to negotiate as a committee, and some of the bands are now dealing directly with the provincial and federal governments for the resolution of the cutoff problem. Some groupings of bands are still negotiating together. The most recent word I have is that two of the bands — Penticton and Westbank — are on the verge of concluding arrangements which are satisfactory to them, the federal government and the province, and that their cutoff land problem will soon be resolved. With regard to some of the others who are not satisfied with the level of contribution from the federal government and have commenced lawsuits, it may be some further time, but not because of any delay or failure on the part of the provincial government to make its contribution to the settlement.

MR. LEVI: Well, the Attorney-General and I will always disagree. They destroyed a mechanism that was set up in terms of negotiation, and then decided to go their own way. But that's something I'm not going to talk about today.

I just want to ask the minister two questions which are unrelated to the one I dealt with. I want to call the minister's attention to something that was discussed last year in respect to the Wendy King and John Farris case. Last year the minister received a letter from a Mr. Peden, who made allegations that Mr. Farris was advised of a wiretap that he phoned into, and if this was the case it was contrary to the Criminal Code.

The minister did not discuss it in the House, but did discuss it with Peter Moon and Robert Williamson, two reporters from the Globe and Mail. I'm only quoting the story.

"Attorney-General Allan Williams said in an interview that police had been most anxious to find out who leaked details of the wiretap. He said he is very concerned at the possibility Mr. Farris was tipped off that his conversation with the prostitute had been recorded and that he should break off his association with her while the tap was in place. 'I am told,' Mr. Williams said, 'that the chief justice has been made aware of this association.'"

The import of the article is that there was going to be an investigation into the matter of whether in fact anybody had advised Mr. Farris that he was phoning into a wiretap and he should desist from doing that. He indicated to the reporters.... I didn't have a chance to talk to them. The Attorney-General did reply to Mr. Peden. Obviously, on the basis of what he said, it had some import. There were a lot of rumours about that. Can the Attorney-General tell us if in fact an investigation was conducted to ascertain whether advice was given to Mr. Farris that he was phoning into a wiretap? Was there such an investigation? If there was, what were the results of it?

A second question the minister might answer afterwards relates to the discussion with Mr. Bourne. I'd appreciate it if you could tell us whether you'll have any role in doing something about the management of computers, the issue of security and what recommendations might be made to the government about that. This is a subject that we've raised on several occasions in the House under another ministry, but here we are talking bout whether that ministry has had discussions with the Solicitor-General regarding legislation that will be beneficial to the implementation of computer security. Is this a function that Mr. Bourne is going to be involved with?

There is a third thing I'd like to ask the minister. Yesterday or the day before, when he was answering my questions about Mr. Bourne, I think he was reading from what appeared to be a statement. If it's a statement which outlines Mr. Bourne's functions, I think it would be useful if he would make it available to us. We're not going to have a great battle about it, but I think he was reading from a statement. If there was such a statement, perhaps he might undertake to give it to the House. Those are the questions I have for the minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With regard to the first matter and the question of the wiretap associated with the Wendy King case, it is my understanding that the police were concerned — as I indicated to the press — as to how information with respect to wiretaps became a matter of public knowledge. They did conduct an investigation, and as far as I am aware that investigation has not disclosed which person or persons may have been involved in such a disclosure. We know that there are many sources; indeed, it may have come from counsel for Miss King. In such matters, as the member knows, if there is the prospect of having to rely upon wiretap information, then that fact must be disclosed to counsel, and the material could have become available in that way. But I'm not making any charges against the lawyer who was involved. It's just that once the information has passed out of the hands of the authorities, it can become public knowledge in a number of ways.

[ Page 6421 ]

With regard to the second question and the matter of computers, I gather that the member is concerned about the theft of computer time. That's not a matter of discussion between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General; but it is a matter of discussion by the authorities with respect to necessary revisions to the Criminal Code dealing with the matter of commercial crime generally and the question of theft of computers and other mechanisms in particular. The Code, as the member will know, is inadequate to meet the changes in modern technology. Therefore, when commercial crime units approach these problems, they are faced with incredible difficulties in laying a charge, even though they may know that the theft of computer information is taking place. It is my hope that when the 11 Attorneys-General meet with Mr. Kaplan in late September of this year that this subject, which I believe is on the agenda, will receive a thorough airing, and we can get the Code cleared up in this area, because it is causing unbelievable problems for commercial-crime investigators.

The Bourne statement. No, I was not reading from a prepared statement; I was reading from some notes that were prepared for me in advance of a press release. I was just referring to those. It is just part of the material I have in my briefing book.

MR. LEVI: I have one small question, just to set the dates in context. As I understand the minister's reply, he was talking about leaks and he mentioned a lawyer in respect to the Farris-King thing — I won't go into that. What I had in mind in my remarks was that according to the available evidence there were two phone calls directly by Mr. Farris, the last one on August 23, 1978; he did not phone again after that. I think that the allegation that there was interference in respect to his being warned would have taken place immediately after that, because charges didn't come till November. We're not talking about what got out. I'm talking about the suggestion that he was warned not to phone again, sometime after August 23, long before. Charges weren't laid against Miss King until November. That's the matter, and I don't know whether that's what they addressed. What happened afterwards? I know that there were all sorts of rumours. But I got the impression, because the minister said it might have been this person or it might have been that person.... I'm talking about whether there was an investigation into the fact that he had been tipped off, if you like. That would have come immediately after the last call, because there were no other calls after August 23. That's the particular time, Mr. Minister. However, he chose to answer it in another way.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of any investigation into that particular matter.

MR. LEVI: That's the very matter I asked you about. I asked whether in fact Mr. Farris was tipped off about a wiretap. We're talking about any time after August 23, not any time before that and not a long time after. That's obviously the crux of the issue, but the minister obviously doesn't know about it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member will know how difficult it is to respond to a question of that kind. He said: "If he was tipped off, when was he tipped off?" We're not even sure who released the contents of wiretap information on which the charges were laid; what possible way would there be of disclosing whether anybody told Mr. Farris anything, if indeed they told him anything? It's impossible.

Vote 22 approved.

Vote 23: administration and support, $6,130,105 — approved.

Vote 24: court services, $39,158,497 — approved.

Vote 25: criminal justice division, $12,273,273 — approved.

Vote 26: police services, $48,813,935 — approved.

Vote 27: corrections, $68,439,352 — approved.

Vote 28: Legal Services Society, $13,000,000 — approved.

Vote 29: legal services to government, $8,261,221 — approved.

Vote 30: superior and county judiciary, $1,626,782 — approved.

Vote 31: provincial judiciary, $7,508,827 — approved.

Vote 32: coroners, $2,685,174 — approved.

Vote 33: British Columbia Parole Board, $326,356 — approved.

Vote 34: Law Reform Commission, $387,756 — approved.

Vote 35: Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, $1,976,380 — approved.

Vote 36: public trustee, $2,002,635 — approved.

On vote 37: Fire Commission, $1,916,836.

MRS. WALLACE: As is my wont under this vote, I want to raise an issue with the minister relative to highrise fires. This is an issue about which I've had some discussions with both the former Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General. What I would ask specifically today — in view of the continuing concerns which are being more and seriously emphasized by the repetition of highrise and hotel tower fires — is what action the Attorney-General is taking on two fronts here in B.C. First, have you carried out any inspections of existing highrise buildings which are above the limits of existing facilities to evacuate people in case of fire? Have you done any studies of the existing buildings to find out how many of those have safety precautions built in? How many are hazardous? Having found that buildings are hazardous, are you so advising the general public that uses those buildings, say in the case of hotels? Are you prepared to do that? I personally now hesitate to stay in a hotel that has a tower. I like a room on the first or second floor. I'm sure that many citizens are concerned about that. I think that is something that the minister could do: review the existing facilities and at least advise the general public of the standards that are presently in those hotels.

[ Page 6422 ]

The second thing that I believe the minister should be doing is to ensure that new buildings going up are built to the standards that will at least make them somewhat safe, with proper sprinkling systems, pressurized stairwells, and proper alarm systems — things that are not available in many of those high-rise buildings.

As the minister knows, we have had some discussions about alternate egress from such buildings. At present I think he has referred that to the federal authorities. I am not at all sure that we really should be simply pushing it off to the federal level. I think that we could probably be reviewing those alternate egress possibilities right here in B.C. We could do some experimentation with the various types offered. Maybe it takes some government assistance financially to ensure that we at least have one high-rise hotel or apartment house with that type of alternate egress available. I think it would be well worth some experimentation, because when you're spending dollars like that to prevent the kind of holocaust that has occurred.... It has occurred in many areas, including areas in Canada. Who says it can't happen in B.C.?

The other issue that I wanted to raise with the minister under this particular vote has to do with the volunteer fire departments. He will recall that we've had some correspondence relative to equipment for volunteer fire departments. The latest letter I have had from the minister was on January 22 of this year. He indicates that the Provincial Secretary had some money for programs for volunteer firefighters. He says in his last paragraph: "We are now in the position of reviewing means whereby assistance might be given to voluntary firefighting departments in the province to assist those groups in the purchase of equipment and other necessary materials. When the final determination is made in this regard, I will advise you further." That gave me some hope that perhaps the volunteers were going to get something, If my memory serves me correctly, I was advised last year that the $100,000 in grants, contributions and subsidies included some funding for just that purpose. I note that it's completely omitted from this year's budget. Does this mean, in fact, that those volunteer firefighters can just give up hope of getting any assistance from the ministry relative to the kind of equipment and the necessary supplies and materials that they've been asking for? Does that mean that it's a complete zero as far as this minister is concerned this year for those volunteer firefighters? Those are the two questions.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The inspection of highrise buildings with regard to fire safety facilities, access and facilities available for the evacuation of buildings is a matter for the inspection of the municipal fire services. This is done with their officials in consultation with the officials of the fire commissioner. It must be remembered that the responsibility for the city of Victoria with regard to the enforcement of the fire codes is that of the city of Victoria. In that respect they are assisted by the office of the fire commissioner.

Following the tragic fires in hotels in the United States of America, this inspection was intensified, and I haven't had a report as to the results of the inspections which specifically looked at the problems which may be associated with the hotels in our communities. But I can assure the member that both the fire chiefs and the fire commissioner are insisting upon the maintenance of facilities and structures in such a way that they fit with the fire code. One of the problems that the member touched upon, with regard to new techniques, pressurized evacuation systems and the like, is that the national code, which has been adopted in the province of British Columbia, obviously lags behind the art that exists within new structural devices. In that regard, the fire commissioner does receive information with regard to new ideas from persons interested in design both of structures and of evacuation facilities. We actively encourage and assist people who are involved in that field, and these are taken by the fire commissioner to his colleagues who are involved in the matter of national fire codes.

With regard to volunteer fire departments, this ministry does not provide any funding under this vote for capital equipment for volunteer brigades. Funding is available either through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or through the Provincial Secretary. We are, however, involved in the development of educational programs at the Justice Training Institute specifically designed for fire services, including the volunteers in those plans. We expect to be able to offer to all the fire services in the province, including volunteers, modern, up-to-date curriculum standards and facilities at the institute either directly in their present location or in a new location which we have under consideration so that fire service training can be carried on and made available to all those — and especially to volunteers in the province.

Vote 37 approved.

Vote 38: British Columbia Racing Commission, $714,081 — approved.

Vote 39: film classification branch, $175,274 approved.

Vote 40: land registry branch, $8,095,484 — approved.

Vote 41: order-in-council patients' review board, $102,350 — approved.

On vote 42: building occupancy charges, $48,952,963.

MR. HALL: This vote is up 29 percent — surely a matter of concern to the chamber and perhaps even a matter of concern to the rentalsman. It's surely a matter of concern to the Attorney-General, who is being ripped off by his colleagues. Rents have gone up out of control, and we're just cycling money around the votes. This is a meaningless figure, Mr. Chairman, in our view. If it's not a meaningless figure, then we would ask that it be explained. It bears no resemblance at all to facts or to the ten-month expenditure figures which we have had tabled in this House. It's a complete bag of mystery from start to finish. Therefore we move that vote 42, building occupancy charges, be reduced by $11,049,963 to bring this vote to some sensibility.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the member for raising this matter. May I say that this ministry is probably an occupier of more premises in the province than any of the others. While the charges have gone up, as the member indicates, by 29.2 percent, may I point out to him that included in the allowance this year is $7.2 million for new capital projects, tenant improvements, parking costs, special furnishing costs, and allowances to cover insurance deductibles

[ Page 6423 ]

and vandalism. We have a significant increase in the building space which is being occupied. We have increased by almost 6 percent the total occupied areas, in addition to the allowances which are being provided for new capital expenditure. Our actual space cost increase is only 11 percent.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 28

Mr. Hall requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 42.

MR. REE: Over a year ago the British Columbia Buildings Corporation acquired certain lands in the city of North Vancouver for the purpose of building a courthouse. I believe that since occupation charges are the vote at the moment and the B.C. Buildings Corporation will be charging rent for this accommodation, this is probably the appropriate vote to ask the Attorney-General what the status is of this courthouse at this point. Approximately a year ago all court facilities were moved out of the police station in North Vancouver and into temporary trailer facilities across from the new site. As I say, maybe the Attorney-General could advise as to the status of the courthouse, when construction may start and the actual timetable until we may be able to utilize this site which is at the moment still vacant, the North Vancouver school having been demolished and the rubble just left there.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Planning for the new courthouse facilities at North Vancouver is virtually complete. I expect to be in a position to disclose those plans very shortly. The North Vancouver courthouse facilities are included in this year's estimates. We will be calling for tenders for the construction of those facilities in the early fall.

MR. LAUK: First of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) on his maiden speech.

Second, I'd like to point out to this government that they can build B.C. Place and the stadiums, but when it comes to schools and courthouses you've got judges, lawyers, witnesses and police occupying trailers. They're not even properly heated. You can build the Pat McGeer memorial hospital at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of British Columbia, but the ordinary citizens are getting justice meted out in the back of a trailer. That's the kind of shocking priorities that this government has. The doctor thinks it's smart that he's got a palatial hospital where he can tinker around with brains in his retirement years at heavy cost to the taxpayer, while judges are sitting in trailers. It's a scandalous situation.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to point out to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano that in Terrace we don't have any difficulty in getting a new courthouse built. It's under construction. Maybe it's the level of representation that's the problem.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition from the junior counsel from Vancouver Centre. I'd like to correct him. It's not my maiden speech. If he had attended the House more often, he might have heard me previously. To correct him further, the police don't occupy the trailer. It's courthouse facilities; it's not police-station facilities. Likewise, if he would use the front door he would notice that we occupy the front of the trailers and not just the back.

Vote 42 approved.

On vote 43: computer and consulting charges, $2,500,000.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, these costs are up again, as they have been in all ministries to date. This time they're up 42 percent for increased computer and consulting charges. The ten-month statement doesn't indicate that level of expenditure. I'm going to move that these charges be reduced by $750,000 to bring them back into line. In keeping with our general program of reducing government expenditures, this would mean that if we looked at this book, "New Democratic Party Spending Cuts," our totals would now be in excess of $75 million. I want to say to the House that if they would take the advice of the members who move these motions, we could have all been proud of the work that's been done in estimates by reducing these stupid excessive estimates, particularly in these two areas of endeavour, namely building rentals and computer charges. It is now apparent the government has no control over BCBC and BCSC. That's to say nothing at all about advertising, which we'll come back to in a later estimate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the remarks of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall). In regard to the direction in which the opposition goes, may I say that if this amendment were to pass it would wipe out an entirely new computerized program necessary for the functioning of the land title system throughout this province and also for the public trustee.

[ Page 6424 ]

MR. NICOLSON: The minister is not telling us everything he could about this new program. This new computer program is simply being written so it will run on a new IBM computer, because they're doing away with the Honeywell computer. If we were to have the opportunity to look into the Systems Corporation and to start questioning and bringing witnesses before a committee such as the Crown corporations committee, we would find out, for instance, that it's going to take the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources nine months to rewrite a program to do the very same thing they're doing today. I suspect that's exactly what's going on here. It's not a new program, it's a program that's being written in a different computer language to tell you the same things and get you the same kind of information. You didn't even spend what you had last year, and yet you come here calling for a huge increase. Don't try and pull the wool over our eyes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the member for Nelson-Creston. He speaks of new languages. Unfortunately he seems to be afflicted by the same problem. The programs I mentioned — the land title system and the public trustee — are entirely new. They were never on the Honeywell computer, and they were designed for IBM.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, in all the time he's had the computer to play around with, and in spite of what the government and the Legislative Assembly has been able to do in voting all the money he's ever wanted, the best the minister has ever been able to do is to spend $28,000 a month. Now he wants double and triple that amount of money. We're saying he's asking for too much. He's deliberately overestimating what he's going to spend, and we say we'll give him some more to play with when he spends the money we gave him last year.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, on this particular vote, I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question. If he is so certain that what he is doing under this vote is responsible financially, then I'm quite sure, knowing the philosophy that he used to have at one point, he would be quite happy to submit the requirements of his ministry to the private sector and invite bids regarding the amount that should be spent on these particular services. If he has nothing to hide, that's exactly what he would do.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Let me respond to the member for Surrey. The estimated final expenditure for computer and consulting charges in the last fiscal year is $1.75 million. The increase for the land titles system and the public trustee is $856,000, which brings you to the figure of $2.5 million, which we're asking for in these estimates. We are in fact reducing some of the charges for existing programs. The response to the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) is that the land titles program, for which $540,000 is included in these estimates, is perhaps going to be used through private sector facilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is that vote 43, computer and consulting charges, be reduced by the amount of $750,000.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 28

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

Vote 43 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:06 p.m.