[ Page 8387 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Election Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Introduction and first reading –– 8387

Division

Oral Questions

Minister's statements on health care. Mr. Cocke –– 8388

Dentistry and podiatry payments. Mr. Cocke –– 8388

Maintenance problems at Kitimat General Hospital. Mr. Howard –– 8388

Ministers' expenses. Mr. Macdonald –– 8389

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 8389

Ministerial statement re electoral redistribution.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8392

Mrs. Dailly –– 8392

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 56). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8393

Mr. D'Arcy –– 8393

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8393

Division –– 8394

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

On vote 10: minister's office (continued) –– 8394

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Davis

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Hall

Mr. Macdonald

On the amendment to vote 10 –– 8408

Division

On the amendment to vote 11: administration and support services –– 8408

Division

On the amendment to vote 17: legal services –– 8408

Division

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR402). Mr. Mussallem

Introduction and first reading –– 8409

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to apprise the House.... The member I was going to address these remarks to is not here, and I prefer to wait. I yield the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today my mother, Mrs. Kent, who is attending with a friend of hers from Victoria, Mrs. Peggy Shield. I hope that the House will welcome my mother.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are a group of adult students who are studying English as a second language and are visiting the House along with their teacher, Mrs. Grace Joe. They're from south Burnaby and I hope the House will join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police awards a long-service medal to outstanding police in Canada. This medal for 25 years of long service in the police force went to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) yesterday. I think it's important for the House to know that members come from all walks of life. Being a police officer in today's world is difficult enough, but 25 years of exemplary service should be mentioned in this House, particularly with such an award being received by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I'd ask the House to show its appreciation.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are a group of elementary students from Quadra Elementary School on Quadra Island, and I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 13 introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 13 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 51

NAYS — 1

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

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order that relates to standing order 8, which says: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House." I want to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the Premier is not here, and leave for him to be absent has not been given.

MR. SPEAKER: I think all members are aware of the practice of this House: that is, although members may not be present in the chamber itself, they are deemed to be present if they are in the precinct. I would be happy to be guided in that by the House; any change would have to be suggested by the House itself.

MR. HOWARD: We need to challenge that decision.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a decision, hon. member; that is the practice of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. He wants to challenge the decision that the decision is not challengeable. Before we entertain the challenge, the point of order of the member who was on his feet, the Minister of Universities.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, persistent absenteeism in the House is a major problem which impairs the proper functioning. My question on this point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that when members, as some we could name in the opposition, are present for less than 60 percent of the divisions of this House, would that not be taken as evidence that they are absent from the precincts.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is no way the Chair can accept responsibility for that.

[ Page 8388 ]

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, the hon. government Whip, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), has brought to our attention many times in the last week or two that there is a problem with the division bells. Because of that, I would ask that we send one of the Pages to the Premier's office to ensure that the bell in the Premier's office is working, because I am sure that he would want to be here for question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, the decision that the ruling of the Chair that a decision is not challengeable was challenged. Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?

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

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 22

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

Oral Questions

MINISTER'S STATEMENTS ON HEALTH CARE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Energy and former Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), when under attack for excessive spending on photographs, was quoted as saying: "Our hospitals are falling to pieces." Does the Minister of Health agree with his colleague's statement on health care?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to accept the member's word that my colleague made that statement. My colleague is in error, and I do not agree with him.

MR. COCKE: The hospitals unanimously endorse the position of the former Minister of Health. I would like to ask the present Minister of Health if he will finally admit the seriousness of the situation, and decide to restore to hospitals funding at a safe level?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I again say that I'll accept the member's word that my colleague made such a statement. If indeed that statement was made, it was in error. No, I do not agree that the hospital system is falling apart, and further, I seriously question when the hospitals have unanimously agreed on anything.

DENTISTRY AND PODIATRY PAYMENTS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister and I will go on discussing this question. However, there's another question I'd like to bring to his attention.

We all know that the dental plan is not paying the patients — that's on the record — because of the fact that somehow or other the telephone between the minister's office and Treasury Board doesn't seem to be working. Now I'm given to understand that all the podiatrists in the province have not been paid; yet they have signed an agreement. Will the minister do something about Treasury Board honouring commitments made last April I?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is what the minister has done, it is in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We expect problems associated with the dental plan and the podiatrists to be resolved very quickly.

MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS
AT KITIMAT GENERAL HOSPITAL

MR. HOWARD: I too would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Because of the limitation controls relating to hospitals, the Kitimat General Hospital finds itself in an untenable position with respect to equipment purchases and maintenance. In that regard, I'd like to ask the minister if he will arrange to contact the Kitimat General Hospital to deal with two very dangerous situations. One is that severe cracks exist in the brick lining of the hospital's 25-year old smokestack, and the other is that the water-level control valve on one of the hospital's two boilers is defective, thus leaving the hospital at the mercy of only one boiler.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is asking for future action?

MR. HOWARD: No, immediate action, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We have an increasing number of questions asking whether the minister will do certain things, and those questions are unacceptable. However, the member for Skeena may well wish to rephrase his question.

MR. HOWARD: Has he decided to do that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to contact someone within the ministry and have them contact the officials at Kitimat General Hospital as soon as possible this afternoon to try to resolve their problems.

[ Page 8389 ]

MINISTERS' EXPENSES

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Premier, and it relates to the Minister of Consumer of Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). On April 3, 1978, in what he called a grave statement to the Legislature, announcing the resignation of the minister who is now the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the Premier said this:

I was advised last weekend of an investigation touching upon the member. Accordingly, at the first opportunity, I met with the member. Under these circumstances....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, is the member for Vancouver East making a statement? The member to whom he has addressed his question is not in the House, and I'm not sure that statements are allowed in question period.

MR. SPEAKER: This is question period. Debate and statements of any appreciable duration are not allowed.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll be very short — to the empty chair.

Under these circumstances, I requested the resignation of the member from the executive council. This action is not a prejudgment of the matter by me, nor is to be taken as an admission of any matter by the member. It is, however....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could I have a ruling from you on whether questions to members who are not in the House are in order?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, questions which are directed to ministers who are not present can be directed to a minister acting for the minister not present. The Chair has not been advised who is the acting minister; therefore my hands are tied.

However, hon. members, the question period is not a forum in which statements are made, and I must now ask the member for Vancouver East to ask his question.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll proceed to the question. The Premier, having said that this was in accordance with the requirements for membership on the executive council.... My question to the Premier is....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you've ruled that questions can be addressed to acting ministers. That question is not addressed to an acting minister; it's addressed to a member of this House who is not in the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in the absence of any direction to the Chair of an acting member, upon the completion of the question it would be the responsibility of the House Leader to either redirect the question or to take the question on notice on behalf of an absent minister. I would be willing to abide by the wishes of the House in this regard. The hon. second member for Vancouver East now asks the question.

MR. MACDONALD: Since the situation that faces the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at the present time is precisely that described within those words of the Premier, I ask the Premier what the distinction is between the two cases? Why is preferential treatment being extended in this case that was not accorded to the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) when he was a minister?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As Deputy Premier I'd be pleased to take the question proposed by the member for Vancouver East as notice without any editorialization as to the premise on which it is based.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: I also have a question for the Premier, and in his absence I will direct this to the Minister of Finance. I asked him similar questions on Monday, which he took on notice. On Monday, in answer to a question of mine, the Premier said that he would not permit a takeover of control of Quintette by the minority Japanese interests in that particular mine. It was announced today in Japan that Denison Mines has agreed to the Japanese takeover terms which would permit a minority Japanese interest in Denison Mines to have effective control. Can the Minister of Finance give his assurance that the government of British Columbia will not permit or countenance changes in the coal deal that will penalize future generations of British Columbians by locking them into a losing proposition, with the Japanese buyers controlling the price of this B.C. resource?

MR. SPEAKER: The question contains considerable argument.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there is considerable editorializing in the question, as you observed. I would also point out that while there are financial implications in every portfolio, another minister, not I, is designated as the minister responsible for industrial development in this province.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I had considered asking that minister, but he was absent on Monday, protecting the Japanese car industry in Ottawa, as I recall, so I thought he might not be right up to date.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is question period.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is again to the Minister of Finance. Nippon Kokan has said the new agreement will be signed on Friday.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody to withdraw that inference. I was protecting jobs for British Columbians in Ottawa on Monday.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is to the Minister of Finance at this point. Has the minister's government decided — and if he wishes to consult with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), please do so — in the next two days to prevent one of British Columbia's most valuable non-renewable resources from falling into the hands of minority Japanese interests?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there are premises in the question that I think are incorrectly established and incorrectly based. It's curious that while one of my colleagues was,

[ Page 8390 ]

in fact, absent on Monday, he is here today. Perhaps the member asking the question doesn't want the answer.

MR. HOWARD: No, Hugh, we want a truthful answer. That's why we're asking you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, the NDP House Leader has indicated that any answer I've given recently is not truthful. I take offence at the member's remarks, Mr. Speaker. The members can giggle and laugh — that's fine.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if any member, whether in possession of the floor or not, attributed to another hon. member any motive less than honourable, I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr. Member for Skeena, was an improper motive imputed?

MR. HOWARD: What I shouted across the floor, Mr. Speaker, was that we wanted a truthful answer. The question was directed to the Minister of Finance because he gives truthful answers. I don't know why he would be upset at that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, all answers are truthful answers in this House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to ask the mud-slinger from Skeena to withdraw the inference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in order to satisfy the House, I ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw any inference of untruthfulness.

MR. HOWARD: There wasn't any inference. If there is presumed or thought to be on anybody's mind, they are in error, but certainly I'll withdraw out of deference to you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: I will ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who must now be up to date on this.... There's a billion and a half in public investment going into this project. We now have an announcement that as of Friday a minority Japanese interest will control the Denison Mines. Are the minister, his government, his Premier and the Minister of Finance going to sit idly by while the Japanese take over this interest and determine the price of the product, and sell it to themselves to subsidize Japanese automobiles?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It never ceases to amaze me how that poor member, who supposedly is a lawyer and supposedly knows something about business, can stand continually in this Legislature in an endeavour to mislead the people of British Columbia. Let me tell you the facts.

As I have stated before in this Legislature, the government of British Columbia indeed has a contract, probably one of the toughest contracts ever put together in the history of any major development in North America.

MR. BARRETT: Table it!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In due course.

That contract is between the government of British Columbia and Quintette Coal. The Japanese partners, who control approximately 38 percent of Quintette Coal Ltd., have, over the last three or four months, made some changes in the shareholdings; and the Japanese steel industry, because of the viability and because this great project will open up a vast new area of the province of British Columbia....

MR. LEGGATT: Demanded control.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't be so stupid. You're a lawyer. My heavens, man, I doubt your ability sometimes.

MR. SPEAKER: That is an unacceptable remark.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw it then.

With the Japanese steel industry coming in, the total Japanese investment in this project remains about the same. The inference made by the member for Coquitlam-Moody is absolute nonsense. Denison Mines, as a 50 percent shareholder in the Quintette project, are the full managers of the project. As in any arrangement, certain basic issues require full board approval, such as additional expenditures of millions of dollars, etc. This is true of any company in Canada. You don't go out and blindly commit your company.

MR. LEGGATT: How about price?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've told that member before that the price of coal is set on long-term contracts, and in those contracts there are adjustments for inflation. Yet that member continually stands up in this Legislature and endeavours to mislead the people of this province that the Japanese 10 percent can set the price of coal. The price of coking coal is generally set by world demand. Coking coal is a world commodity. It is needed not only by the Japanese but also by every steel industry. Canada is still a net importer of coal, because the steel industry in Ontario buys all its coal in the United States. The price of coal is set by world demand; that has always been the case. You're trying to build up some scene....

I'd like to take that member for Coquitlam back to 1968 when the steel industry of Japan rescued the province of British Columbia and Kaiser Coal when they were suffering financial hardships. The development of the southeast has created thousands of jobs in the province of British Columbia. The investment that we are making today will provide opportunity for further commerce. The total investment by the taxpayers of British Columbia will be more than paid for by the two initial contracts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point or order, I'd like to correct a quotation attributed to me in the House during question period; I'm rising at this first opportunity. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said that I had....

[ Page 8391 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't know of any vehicle by which we can make....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: A correction of a statement attributed to me during the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order raised by the Minister of Energy, the only vehicle in standing orders that I'm aware of that allows for any kind of correction is standing order 42, which provides that if a member makes a speech in this House and he is either misquoted or misrepresented in the content of his speech which was made in this House, that correction can be made in this House. But remarks attributed to a member either in a newspaper, in the corridor or away from the precinct cannot be corrected under any vehicle of which I am aware. May we conclude with this point first, because the member has an opportunity to respond.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps you could help me then. Surely there is a vehicle for quotations attributed to a member of this House by another member of this House, in this House, which are incorrect — to raise them in some manner in order that the member who is incorrectly quoted has the opportunity to respond and make a correction. Then the record would be straight.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sure that with the imaginative abilities that all members have, they would find ways. It is not for the Chair to instruct in the rules.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wasn't asking for instruction; I was asking for advice from the Chair. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could rise on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, a matter of privilege can be stated immediately, under standing order 26.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. If you accept my point, I would be happy to have a motion ready at the appropriate time.

During question period the member for New Westminster attributed to me a statement that hospitals were falling to pieces, as I think he said. What I said was not that hospitals were falling to pieces but that members opposite said that unemployment was bad, the economy was bad, and they said that hospitals were falling to pieces, yet instead of doing the work they're being paid to do they'd sooner wallow around in the mud, slip around in the kind of gutter politics that they've become so good at over the past few years. That is what I've said.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) please come to order.

Does the member now have a motion to propose?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the motion could be presented when it was ruled whether or not there was a matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: May we then have the statement of the matter. I'll take it under consideration and bring a decision to the House.

The Leader of the Opposition was standing on a point of order some time back.

MR. BARRETT: I rise on a point of order, referring to quotations from documents which were made by the minister in answer to a question. Is it not a rule in this House that when a minister refers to specific parts of a document such as the agreement on northeast coal, the agreement should be tabled?

MR. SPEAKER: When a document is quoted in this House verbatim, it is normal procedure for it to be tabled. If it is only referred to or paraphrased, it is not required to be tabled. However, that discretion lies with the individual who refers to such a document. Without having the document in hand the Chair cannot possibly determine whether or not it was quoted from or paraphrased or simply referred to.

MR. BARRETT: That is my dilemma. For some months now we have had this document referred to, but it has mysteriously been kept secret, and we get closer to paraphrasing, or maybe not.... I know it's difficult for the Chair, but it's even more difficult for us as members. I'm at a loss, Mr. Speaker, as to how this rule applies when we're continuously being subjected to references to a document that is being kept secret.

MR. SPEAKER: I have confidence that when the document is substantially quoted from it will be tabled in the House.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's been a long-standing practice of this House, under standing orders, that if one member misquotes another in the House, the member then rises and corrects the record. That is not outside the House; it is inside the House, and it is especially important. I've been in the House as long as you have, Mr. Member, and I know what's gone on inside the House.

Mr. Speaker, the obvious reason for this ruling and the practice is that not only is it insulting for one member to misquote another — whether by accident or not — it's important that the record be corrected for the purposes of Hansard. Question period has been instituted since this rule and this practice became accepted in the House, and I would like to suggest to you, sir, that when you consider the matter of privilege you take into consideration the longer-standing rule and practice of the House that makes it unnecessary for matters of privilege to be raised over simple misquotations, whether during question period or during debate in the House.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: In the matter of correcting statements, during the course of debate it is not unusual in this House for there to be a divergence of opinion as regards various matters. Facts fall into dispute — that's the normal course of debate. If we accepted in this House the practice that whenever one member disagrees with another member he should then have another opportunity in the same debate to stand up a second or a third or a fourth time to take his place in that debate, the entire rule that a member may speak only once to a question would fall into disrepair. Hon. members, I have presided over this House for several years and have watched members try to

[ Page 8392 ]

stand up following a motion or a question or a statement to try to correct what they perceived as something in error in that statement. The Chair has steadfastedly resisted it. If there is any practice that can be traced through the Journals and through Hansard, that practice is this: the Chair has resisted that kind of procedure because it would put the whole question of debate into an intolerable phase.

Standing order 42 is in its place. It is there for a specific reason, and I think that we should observe it within the bounds of its intent. I do believe that if we wish to stretch standing order 42 beyond its intent, I would resist that with all of my strength. However, if it is the wish of the House to amend standing order 42, then the remedy is also in place: simply refer it to the committee which is standing, awaiting your instruction to do exactly this, and should that instruction come from that committee and be adopted by the House, the Chair would be happy to abide by that.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I had....

MR. SPEAKER: There's no debate on the point of privilege.

MR. COCKE: I know that. I wish to table a document that will help Mr. Speaker make a decision, because the exact words I used are in this document. The exact words the minister argues about....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There's no debate. The question is: shall leave be granted for the tabling of the document?

Leave granted.

MR. NICOLSON: I rise on a point of order. I'm sorry to take so long, Mr. Speaker, but during question period I took note of some of the terms used by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Yesterday there was disorder in this House, which you dealt with very promptly and probably with the appropriate amount of severity.

When there was a request today for the withdrawal of some statements by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development got up and asked, with words to this effect: "Would you ask the mudslinger to withdraw any inference of lying?" Maybe with some human frailty, Mr. Speaker, you asked an hon. member to withdraw any inference of lying, but you did not immediately deal with that.

Through the questioning which then followed, the member twice referred to my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) as trying to "mislead the people of the province," and then on another occasion, used the word "liar," which you did upbraid him for.

I request that you review the actions of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development during question period today to decide whether some punitive action should follow, as it would appear to me to have been deliberate mischief, tampering with the good conduct in the House and trying to make the Speaker's job more difficult than it needs to be.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I have a somewhat different point of order that concerns the conduct of question period.

My experience has always been that there is a rule of relevancy in question period. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has consistently given irrelevant answers to relevant questions. There's no question about that. At no time today during question period did he deal with the question he was asked, which was the specific question on the takeover of Quintette. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you have the jurisdiction to intervene and ask the member to sit down for speaking nonsense and not dealing with questions. With the greatest respect, I would ask that you do so in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: With regard to conduct and procedure in question period, I will undertake to review the entire process to see whether we can put into force in question period the kind of procedure which would fall more squarely into the provisions of Beauchesne and Sir Erskine May.

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as members may be aware, recent census figures show that British Columbia's population has increased by almost 11 percent over the past five years. This increase gives rise to whether our province's citizens are sufficiently represented in this Legislature. Consequently, I am pleased to announce that we're appointing a commissioner under the Inquiry Act to determine whether these new census figures warrant additional seats in this House.

Under the terms of the appointment, Mr. Derril Warren, a Kelowna lawyer and one-time leader of the B.C. Progressive Conservative Party, will be the commissioner. Mr. Warren will be looking at a number of factors, including population, geography and past history. Should he see fit, he can recommend the addition of representation to existing electoral districts and subdivision of multiple-member districts that warrant representation by more than two members. The commissioner's findings and recommendations are to be made on the basis that this assembly comprise no fewer than 57 and no more than 71 members.

As all members know, our democratic system of government is based on fair and effective representation. That is the intent of the commissioner's duties, and I am sure that all members of this House will assist the commissioner with this task. Like all members, and all British Columbians, I look forward to his findings and concluding recommendations.

In conclusion, I ask leave to table a copy of the order-in-council, which has been recommended by cabinet, so that members will have the benefit of the exact terms of reference of the commissioner's appointment.

Leave granted.

MRS. DAILLY: I was listening in my office, and I wish to say to the Provincial Secretary that we appreciate you making this announcement to us. However, if I may express a concern on behalf of our party, once again it is a one-person commission, and I think the policy of the New Democratic Party is that we think it would be far preferable to establish at least a three-person commission. It's no reflection whatever on the person you have announced, but I do wish to state that

[ Page 8393 ]

we feel that most of these commissions, in other jurisdictions, are not handled by just one person. I regret that you have decided to continue that policy.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL
GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The purpose of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act is primarily to serve two purposes. One requirement is to provide for increases in fees and rentals which apply to petroleum permits and leases. These were set in a schedule in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, and provisions in the legislation allow for those revisions to be made through regulations, as required by order-in-council. I might just mention that there have been no fee increases since 1974.

The second main purpose is simply to meet some housekeeping needs. It's been the practice to update the legislation from time to time. These further changes are quite minor. The area where five-year term leases are allowed is increased. Improved access allows more year-round drilling in this larger area that's established, so the industry doesn't need a ten-year term. This doesn't apply to marine areas. The amendments provide that surrendered oil and gas rights go into the Crown reserve category. So that companies do not file on this acreage, better control over the provincial resource is assured through this measure.

Some name changes are made just to recognize some organizational changes which have been made within the ministry, and provisions are made in the legislation for administering the new oil reference price system established by the federal government, unless Mr. MacEachen changes the national energy program on Monday night — which we all hope he will.

With those few words, I move second reading.

MR. D'ARCY: The opposition is going to oppose this bill. I think it should be called the Petroleum and Natural Gas "Keep the Industry on its Back for Another Year" Amendment Act, 1982. Once again we see the government going after an industry that has been devastated by economic events in North America and the world. Instead of, like the federal government recently and the Alberta government, realizing the errors of their ways — in the federal government's case, in terms of their national energy program, and in the case of the Alberta government, realizing that their agreement with Ottawa was a bit too harsh on the industry, given today's economic conditions.... Our provincial government, and that minister over there, instead of understanding that reality and easing up on government charges to an industry that is in a great deal of trouble, chooses to force it further into the ground. That industry is already virtually flat on its back. It was reported in the media a few weeks ago that only two rigs were drilling for gas and petroleum in the entire province of B.C. Instead of making specific the lease charges and rentals that the industry is going to face, this bill is going to put the industry in the same position as other industries have been put in by this government, such that they don't really know where the goal-posts are going to be next year or the year following, what the charges are going to be. They're faced with a situation where the government, in cabinet secrecy, without coming to this assembly and without consulting the press of this province, can arbitrarily change the rates, leases and fees charged to the industry. The government wants to raise an extra $13 million to $14 million this year, according to the minister. By our calculations, it appears from the estimates that he is socking the industry with a further 17 percent increase this year. I submit that this is substantially beyond the guidelines put forth by the government itself in terms of spending control in the public sector — not only their own government spending but also the spending of local government in this province.

I want to repeat that we will be opposing this bill. We do not believe in cabinet secrecy, when it comes to charges to the public, by this government or any other government. We don't believe in a further body-blow to an industry that is already flat on its back. A few weeks ago, this minister quite correctly admitted that he had made a mistake in suggesting amendments to the Mineral Act. Those amendments would have been very hard for the mining industry, which is in a great deal of trouble in this province, to counter, and he quite correctly, having admitted his error, withdrew the bill. He then comes back a week later with the same kind of a bill relating to the petroleum and natural gas industry. I think the minister should reconsider once more. If we have a healthy petroleum and natural gas industry in this province, the minister knows very well that the revenue to the government, as well as the revenue to individuals and businesses in terms of profits and wages, will far exceed the $13 million to $14 million which the government expects to raise as a result of this bill — assuming that this money can be brought in, because we may have no industry at all to bring in any funds to the government if the government proceeds with this bill.

Without question, this kind of action on the part of the government is typical of other actions over the last five or six years. We saw it in the ferry rate increase bill a few weeks ago; we see it in the forest legislation; we see it in the water rental increase. The government arbitrarily wants to saddle individuals, business and industry with increased fees, increased charges and increased difficulties when it comes to doing business in this province and getting the economy back on its feet. I certainly do not support this bill, and we will be voting against it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker. I might just note, so that members could be prepared during committee stage, that part of the bill is incorrect. The date of implementation is July 1, but it should read September 1. We will be including amendments at the proper time for that.

For that and other reasons, and because the industry is depressed at this time, the estimated revenues of $10 million to $15 million for a full year will likely be in the $5 million to $6 million range. It's a fairly modest increase. As I've said before, there have been no increases since 1974. One reason that increases get behind an orderly method of keeping up with the needs of the community, of making sure that our resources return a fair value to the people of the province who own those resources, is that they tend to be in legislation. So

[ Page 8394 ]

it depends on the timing and on what happens to the Legislature at various times of the year in order to set priorities on getting legislation in place.

The member talked about setting rates and fees behind closed doors. I remember the former Premier of the province, now his leader and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), telling the chicken farmers of B.C.: "If you want to do business with me, come into my office. We'll do it behind closed doors and we'll set little private deals." I also remember the former Mines minister, who became Mines minister in the dying days of the government, taking over from a minister who literally destroyed the mining industry in British Columbia, telling the mining industry virtually the same thing: "We're not going to have any royalties for you; we're not going to have any taxes. What we'll do is this: you come into my office and we'll pass little deals together." Every mining company had a little different deal that it made with the Minister of Mines.

Also I'd like you to hark back to how Hydro rates used to be set. They were set in the same way — behind cabinet doors — until this government established the British Columbia Utilities Commission, and Hydro rates are now set in public after full public hearing for the first time in history.

Mr. Speaker, with those few kind words, I move second reading.

Motion approved on following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

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

Bill 56, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $149,981.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to interfere with the progress of the committee, but I wanted to respond to a matter which was raised by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). I wanted to respond yesterday, but he volunteered with the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) to pair for the afternoon. Perhaps he'll be back in the chamber later, so maybe we can carry on.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with three items. The first one is the Freedom of Information Act. I think the Attorney-General knows that for a number of sessions now I have introduced this bill hoping that the government would bring one in, if they won't accept mine. I understand that the Attorney-General is actually looking at the possibility of one, according to an article in a recent paper. I don't think I need to go through the importance of freedom of information. I think we're all aware that any enlightened democracy today should certainly have in their statutes a Freedom of Information Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to advise the committee, perhaps the member could relate to the administrative actions of the Attorney-General, which I'm sure the member is going to do, and avoid discussion of legislation.

MRS. DAILLY: Under the administration of the Attorney-General, I'm very glad to say that I understand he is considering, as the administrator of the Ministry of Attorney-General, the possibility of bringing in the act.

I simply want to ask him a couple of questions, if he would be kind enough to answer. First of all, it is such an important piece of legislation that I was wondering if he would perhaps consider establishing a committee of the Legislature to assist him and his ministry in the development of a Freedom of Information Act. I know that in the House of Commons they worked on an act for many years. I wonder if the Attorney-General would give consideration to the establishment of a legislative committee in which we could assist him in the development of this.

I also want to say that why I'm so concerned about everyone having their input into this is that for the citizens of this province to finally receive one, I think we all want to take part and be sure that it will be a piece of legislation that will provide all our citizens with full access to government documents. That is important; otherwise it would be a mockery to bring in something that did not provide this. I hope the Attorney-General would find it possible to comment on that. A number of actions have taken place under the Social Credit government where, if an information act had been on the books, perhaps there could have been a lot of adversarial moments on the floor of this House that would never have taken place if we had originally been given the opportunity to information that we as the opposition and the public should rightfully have. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I think you would agree with me that the public should never be subjected to any coverups of information that may be politically

[ Page 8395 ]

undesirable for a ministry to release, when actually the information should be available for the public to judge themselves. It becomes a very one-sided Legislature if the opportunity to make judgments is only based on a very slow leakage of information from the ministers of this government.

The second point I want to make is to do very briefly with Oakalla. Yesterday the minister said that new facilities were definitely needed. Naturally I understand that you need to have the women's section, perhaps combined with the federal. Are federal and provincial women inmates to be in one area? I'd like to know that. The second question is: has his ministry considered whether it is absolutely necessary to incarcerate a lot of the people now incarcerated in Oakalla who are not there for violent crimes? I think that is a debate that is going on in society today. We're all questioning the cost of incarcerating people who are being placed in provincial jails, perhaps for something not of a violent nature. Do we need to spend all this money? Can another system of perhaps regional camps, more minimum-security type, smaller areas be found, instead of the public having to finance, through their tax dollars, another provincial institution that is going to cost enormous sums of money? Has the ministry ever given consideration to whether we really need to incarcerate the number of people that it apparently will be incarcerating again? It just seems to me that the whole penal system has not changed that much in the last 100 years. I wonder if you could comment on the need for this, because the serious offenders could be taken care of in the federal system.

One final quick question. It is on the mandatory testing of people who have injuries.... You may have answered this earlier. People who have been in tragic car accidents are taken to hospital, and because of their injuries there is no mandatory testing allowable — maybe not because of their injuries but because they're in the hospital. In many cases we do not know what the type of impairment was. I think this has been an impediment to proper justice. I wonder if you could comment on those three items.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the questions which the member for Burnaby North raises are certainly appropriate, and I'm delighted to have the opportunity to respond.

With respect to freedom of information, I share the same view that she does with respect to the necessary availability of information in the hands of government, not only to members of this Legislature so that they may better discharge their function, but also so that the citizens of the province can have access to the information that is developed by government in the course of many of its activities so that they too may be able to participate more effectively in the processes of government. The officials in my ministry have been examining very carefully the freedom of information legislation that has been introduced in some provinces. Frankly, we find the examples in other provinces to be lacking in the scope that seems indicated with regard to freedom of information, if indeed it is to be an effective program. We have also examined the programs in other jurisdictions and have carefully analyzed many of the aspects of the federal legislation that has been so long in the drafting and so long under consideration by the committee of the House of Commons. We still have very serious reservations about some aspects of the federal bill, but we will be looking forward to seeing what the final results of the debate on that legislation will be. It is regrettable, however, that no matter how one approaches freedom of information, there are certain aspects of government information which must be excluded from a ready access to public inspection. This has been set out and dealt with in a variety of ways. We are particularly interested in the approach taken by the federal government in this respect, and we are also looking forward to identifying the nature of the bureaucratic administration which will be a necessary companion of freedom of information legislation. That examination is going on at the same time as considering what the legislation should be in this province.

We find that simple matters like filing systems and the retrieval of information would require, in the ministries of government, a very major overhaul of the entire document filing and retrieval systems. This will be assisted materially with increased computerization, but that aspect is being dealt with as well. There is not much point in bringing forward freedom-of-information legislation if, when the citizen goes to seek the information to which he is entitled, he finds that there will be long delays and indeed some impossibility of finding the information and the documents which are properly requested. What I am saying to the member is that it's an important move forward; it's one which is not being ignored. Careful study is being given to the matter. I can't at the moment forecast when legislation will be in the draft stage, but I believe that when it does come forward it will draw upon the better aspects of all of the other examples that have been tried.

Freedom of information creates some very serious problems with regard to the criminal justice division. We know from the American experience, for example, that through their legislation the underworld is able to obtain information which is directly beneficial to them and directly contrary to the enforcement of the laws in the United States' jurisdiction. We would want to be careful that that is not the case, and that's one of the major debates that continues between the provinces and the federal government with regard to the federal legislation.

Consideration by a committee of this Legislature: I'm not certain whether it would be appropriate; in fact, I doubt if it would, in the development of legislation. But in view of the scope of this legislation, it is one which, in my view, should be appropriately examined by the select standing committee. I have always believed that greater use can be made of our select standing committees with regard to information of this import, because irrespective of whether you're on the opposition side or on the government side, I think that careful analysis of the direction that we're going — indeed, making it possible for the citizens to make representations about concerns that they may have about aspects of the bill — is important. It would be milestone legislation for this province and should be treated in that particular way.

Oakalla. One of the new units that we are contemplating — as I said yesterday — is the new women's facilities. We embarked upon this project because of growing concern with respect to the Lakeside Correctional Centre. Even though it has been significantly modernized in recent years, we consider that a new women's facility is desirable, and should be separated from any of the male institutions — not that there's any interrelationship now, but I think that it should be located in some other place than where male prisoners are kept. The concept of federal women prisoners being in our facilities only arose two years ago, when in conversation with the

[ Page 8396 ]

Solicitor-General of Canada, he indicated that they were seeking to phase out the Kingston institution.

One of the reasons for that is that there are serious problems in visits from members of the families of women who are incarcerated in those facilities. They had been discussing an arrangement with the province of Alberta whereby women prisoners from Alberta could be kept in an institution in that province. That started the discussions, which have continued to a stage where we have identified points of understanding between the provincial government and the Solicitor-General's department as to how this would be done. We have identified the size of the unit required; we have also identified what we will be obliged to do operationally in running the institution in order to meet federal standards. We have also indicated to the Solicitor-General of Canada that we wish to apply some of our provincial standards to those prisoners with respect to programs, educational opportunities and rehabilitation techniques. This is being worked out, and we think it will be an improvement. The federal government has indicated they would assist in the capital cost and contribute financially to the annual operating expense on a per-inmate basis. It would be run by the provincial corrections system with financial contributions from the federal government.

With regard to other facilities, we do have many programs in the corrections branch that are specifically designed to keep people from being incarcerated. The debate that rages around whether or not we should do anything at Brannan Lake as part of that program. We want to decentralize our correction facilities. We want to provide more open facilities, where we can handle prisoners who are classified for facilities of that kind. We don't have maximum and minimum security institutions, as in the federal system. Ours are divided into two categories — secure or open. Even the open facilities have a gradation of security. As soon as a person is convicted, it is the responsibility of the corrections branch to classify that person and determine what institution will best suit that individual and the penalty that he or she must pay to society for his or her crime.

Through this, we have reached the refinement of what is now called a direct-entry program. There was a time when, if you were convicted in a court in the city of Vancouver, Burnaby or New Westminster with a sentence of two years less a day or less, you would be taken to Oakalla, where you would be classified and would spend some days there. Having been classified, you would then perhaps be sent to one of the other, open institutions. We now have a program in place whereby direct-entry access is available. We are now able to classify in advance of that step, and take the person directly to an institution of a type other than Oakalla. This is done at the Alouette River unit, for example, where we take prisoners whose crimes are non-violent. They tend to be alcohol-oriented and are unlikely to be in the facility for much longer than three or four weeks. Through direct entry we are able to take them from the court in which they are sentenced to our Alouette River unit, process them and merge them into the program. That's the direction in which we hope to proceed.

To the extent we are able, and as quickly as we are able, we are expanding the community correctional centre concept. It is the most open institution we have and is used for intermittent sentences. We have them operating in the midst of Vancouver. In many cases, the people who live in the surrounding areas don't even know it is that kind of institution. The classification of the prisoners who go to that institution is such that we have no difficulty whatsoever in functioning in that way. We are proceeding to develop more camps and more of these open facilities.

While I'm on the subject, the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) raised the question of why there aren't camps for girls. I'm glad she raised the matter. I don't have an answer for her, but it will be referred to the commissioner of corrections. I agree with the member that surely we don't have to accumulate a lot of people before we can give the experience. While we go a long way to give camp-type experience, such as Outward Bound, to young men in order that they may face challenges — which have a major rehabilitative effect — we think that similar challenges can be developed for girls as well. It may not necessarily be the same rigorous type of experience in many cases, but I think the same kind of challenge.

MS. BROWN: It can be the same.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.

Lastly, the member raises the question of the mandatory testing of bodily fluids. I think you were referring to blood tests. This is a problem which is being addressed by all of the Attorneys-General in Canada; it was dealt with at the Attorneys' meeting in Newfoundland last October. A resolution was passed supporting that concept, and an interprovincial committee of Deputy Attorneys-General has been established under the direction of the Deputy Attorney-General for the province of Saskatchewan. They have been looking at what is being done in other countries of the world with regard to mandatory testing of blood samples. Australia is one; Sweden is another. Australia even has a program whereby when you get your driver's licence, you consent at that time to mandatory testing of blood samples. It is a far better method of determining alcohol content than is a breathalyser, and this will be discussed at the meetings in Montebello, I believe, in August of this year — all the experience from other countries.

We know that the Canadian Medical Association has passed resolutions in support of this move; we're also aware of the resistance that can be expected from people in the civil liberties movement. We understand their concern, but I think it was the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who spoke earlier in debate on this matter, who raised the question that perhaps we should look at the balance between civil rights — whether you should protect the civil rights of a person who by reason of his or her consumption of alcohol has seriously maimed or killed some person, or the civil rights of the person who, lawfully going about his or her affairs, is placed in jeopardy by that person. I think that argument, when it comes, will be an interesting one. I support the concept. I don't believe that there is the kind of problem that has been identified in this regard, and it will provide us with a means of resolving many of the problems that are experienced in drinking and driving.

In this province we have been able to develop a significant amount of invaluable information, which is contributing to the committee of Deputy Attorneys-General, through a pilot project that was run at the Royal Columbian Hospital under the aegis of my predecessor, now the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). The doctors in the emergency wards and staff at the Royal Columbian Hospital undertook this project where they asked people who came in

[ Page 8397 ]

to the hospital from motor-vehicle accidents and so on if they I would consent to having a blood sample taken. From that we have some very valuable information, and from that program we can clock the time of the week and the time of the day when the incidence of high blood-alcohol readings can be identified. It is quite dramatic when you consider what happens Friday and Saturday nights between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m.

With this we also have the startling information which is coming from the province of Ontario, based upon their statistical analysis of highways tests, that as you drive down the highway in that province every eighth car you pass is driven by someone who has an unacceptable blood-alcohol level. That's a very dangerous exposure. We undertook a similar program in British Columbia, and the analysis of the statistics is not yet complete, but it is startling to contemplate the frequency with which, on the average, you are, when driving your car, confronted by another vehicle in which the driver may be impaired.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. I'll deal with two subjects only, subjects which you'll recognize as being properly in the area covered by the Attorney-General's estimates, since they involve the law and the way in which it's administered in this province. My first topic is white-collar crime: how it's spotted and how it's dealt with in British Columbia. My second topic is expropriation of private property and the way our governments deal with our citizens and their property rights in British Columbia.

Firstly, about white-collar crime, some say that it's on the increase — I don't know about that. What I do know, however, is that the RCMP's commercial crime squad in B.C. has grown in numbers. Starting as a pilot project in the mid-1960s, what was initially a two-man section has swelled to 70. Its budget has grown as well. Its investigations, many of them now extremely sophisticated, reach into nearly every aspect of business life. They reach into the professions and into the activities of the public service as well.

I said that British Columbia's RCMP commercial crime squad had its beginnings as a pilot project some 17 years ago. It was the first in Canada and was something of an experiment until 1974, when the previous government, the NDP government, upgraded the entire operation. According to Superintendent Bob Mullock, and as reported in the monthly magazine B.C. Business, October 1980 edition, the force "pressured the NDP government into a massive reorganization and rewriting of B.C.'s enforcement regulations, allowing for considerable expansion of the section." The same article then goes on to say:

"Government sources say Mullock is as successful and persistent in attempting to increase his section's budget and staff as he is in accurately predicting crime trends, how to ambush the trends and consequently earning the respect of officers throughout the force."

I gather that it has only been in the last few years, with its growing numbers and its increasing expertise, that British Columbia's pacesetting commercial crime squad has had a significant impact on crime in the business and related sectors in this province. Not only did it have to learn a lot about business and business methods, but it also had to learn from experience how the rules were being broken, and where the most flagrant cases of fraud did in fact occur. It took many investigatory man-hours to track down a crime in the securities area, for example. To quote Superintendent Mullock again:

"It wasn't worth the problems it created for enforcement agencies. It has been a success story since.... It has vastly improved in the last four or five years, but it has a long way to go yet. It's not perfect by any means, and there are always going to be people who are going to try and stretch the law to the nth degree. I don't think we'll ever plug all the holes, but public disclosure rules have gone a long way to helping, and the advent of the computer has helped us enormously. It now takes us 30 seconds to get a list of all the contracts in a trade where it used to take us months before."

Speed is one thing. Presumably the RCMP's commercial crime unit is becoming more efficient all the time. But there's another aspect to its growing number of investigations. That's an increasing awareness in the business community, among professionals and in the public service that white-collar people are being watched, and watched closely. This combination of larger police resources and a growing public awareness is one of the ingredients which will reduce commercial scams in this province no end. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "scam" — questionable business practices perhaps, ones which take advantage of one business person as opposed to another. employers as opposed to employees, shareholders as opposed to top management, whatever you will. But a presumption of guilt is always a dicey thing, especially where the law and the courts are concerned.

Fraudulent business practices, described in precise legal and accounting terms, were not a problem for lawyers and accountants up until the 1970s. Then the law started to change and enforcement became more rigorous. The two have dovetailed, and as a result we have many more cases coming before the courts. We have more court decisions defining, in a body of case law, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable conduct in business and business-related activities — from a criminal point of view. Clearly governments — and the government of this province is not alone — have opted for more standards and tougher standards in the business relationships of individuals and corporations or agencies.

What has happened to old ideas like caveat emptor? They've gone by the wayside insofar as the consumer is concerned. Now they're being discarded in business as well. Word of mouth, trust between individuals and words like "reasonableness" have apparently gone out the window. Laws are being put in their place. Each of these laws has its loopholes, and each loophole invites fresh legislation. This is an awesome process insofar as business of the old, rough and ready style is concerned. It makes risk-taking riskier still. The rewards flow more and more to the cautious, the careful, the well-advised — both from a legal and an accounting point of view. This is too bad because, while it provides additional employment for lawyers and accountants, it's also wrapping business up in red tape. That's my warning, especially to small businessmen who don't have the expertise to deal with this kind of thing.

However, we've hardly begun. The 1980 article in B.C. Business had him stating that his section caseload had become backlogged to the extent that they had 32 man-years of work on hand and new cases flooding in. Other government officials quoted in the same magazine suggested that the

[ Page 8398 ]

commercial crime backlog was growing as the commercial crime unit generated most of its own cases. Other types of workload, they said, were being imposed on it. Again, quoting the same article, I find the following section interesting. "The section" — this is the unit — "is contemplating establishment of a corruptions group to investigate reports of crime involving politicians in B.C." To be quite clear, that was an article written some 18 months ago. I leave it to you, Mr. Chairman, to judge who the magazine's sources were and what the results have been.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Apparently the commercial crime unit employs outside expertise. It has contracts with chartered accountants and others with specialized backgrounds — for example, company comptrollers. They help sift the evidence gathered by the police as a result either of co-ordinated raids of every aspect of a suspected business transaction or of voluntary submissions of records from a business, which itself is a report of a white-collar crime. The consultants apparently narrow down the location of the suspected activity and point to possible trails where more evidence might be found. It's the police who actually carry out the investigation and conduct the interviews. Again I quote Mr. Mullock.

"There are specific types of material the accountants pass on to us. They really put the handle on what the books say. What the investigator has to do is be trained to ask the right questions of the auditor. We'll go for the accountant as much as possible, because when we take the case to court, his testimony is expert and it counts for more."

One of the key differences between white-collar crime and most other types of criminal code infractions is that in a commercial crime investigation the police almost always know, even at the outset, who the suspect is. The finger points already. The challenge is in proving that a crime was actually committed. Often in a complicated serious of transactions which have every appearance of legitimacy, they may turn out to be legitimate, at least in the minds of those involved. However, the police face one hazard which is doubly serious insofar as the innocent are concerned. Some people try to get even with their employers, partners or competitors by claiming that they have swindled the innocent. They're trying to get back at someone often as a result of a business failure. This, according to Mr. Mullock, is itself a crime.

Because of the nature of the activity, commercial cases generally involve a lot of money. There is considerable expenditure, certainly, on the part of the RCMP, since officers must often spend — besides time needed for sifting through innumerable records — months of taking down detailed evidence in other towns, provinces, states or countries, and, after all this is done and the charge levied, giving direct evidence and assembling witnesses at each stage in the court case itself. Cost, obviously, is a big item. It's the order of magnitude of cost as compared to the dollars-and-cents scale of a crime that I would like to dwell on for a moment.

In some instances, from a purely commercial or even taxpayer point of view, the cost isn't worth the trouble. Let me refer to my own encounter with the justice system in this province as a case in point. My transgression, that of keeping the difference between a first-class fare and an economy fare on half a dozen occasions, was of the order of $1,000. I estimate the cost of the investigation by the police and my prosecution by the Crown to be in the order of $250,000. Two hundred and fifty to one is a poor cost-benefit ratio. It's ridiculous from a single income-outgo point of view. So there had to be more to it — an example, for instance. Someone had to be tripped up for doing that sort of thing. Someone had to be put through the hoops, and it was I.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I can understand that. I understand that when some person unknown — and I've never been able to find out who that person was — blew the whistle on me, the commercial crime squad was intrigued. It started digging and found that I had turned in a ticket more than once. So they really went after me, covering all of my comings and goings as a federal and provincial cabinet minister, as president of my own consulting engineering firm, and as a private person. There wasn't anything they didn't look into over an approximate ten-month period, and there were very few people they didn't interview who had worked with me or for me over a period of years. It was upsetting at the time and it hurt my family no end, but I got over it, or most of it. What I still find disconcerting is the fact that my company books disappeared at the outset and didn't turn up until I dropped my appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Then I found them on my back doorstep, unaddressed, and with no indication whatsoever of who had had them in the meanwhile.

I realize that one of the purposes of estimates is to question the responsible minister. I have, therefore, my several questions to the Attorney-General in this area of commercial crime and its administration in B.C.

First, who initiates these investigations? Second, who decides whether or not these investigations should be pursued to the courts? Third, when and to whom do the police report when they think they have found something? Fourth, do the police themselves recommend prosecution, and if so, are their recommendations always or frequently acted upon? What I'm really groping for is some idea as to the freedom of action our commercial crime squad has and the extent, if any, to which the rest of the ministry in general, and the Attorney-General in particular, has a veto over its operations. Are they able to do their own thing at all times, or are there some policy limitations on their activities? By that, I mean their searches and the prosecutions which they recommend and which may take place.

Before I leave this topic of commercial crime and swing over to the matter of expropriation, I want to make it quite clear that I'm not trying to rework my own case. I think I can understand how it happened and why the outcome was as it was. Mine was a high-profile case and, as the judge who sentenced me said, I had to be dealt with more harshly than others in similar circumstances who are not in the public eye. That's behind me, but I really want to know where the purview of the minister — the Attorney-General and his staff — begins and ends in this area of commercial crime, and how the Attorney-General ideally would like to deal with it in the future.

My second topic, as I indicated earlier, is expropriation. I want to make the point, as I have done in previous estimates of the Attorney-General, that we should have one carefully thought-out, phrased and administered expropriation act in British Columbia. We shouldn't have a host of provincial laws, some 30 of them, some old and some new, some adequate and some inadequate, some fair and some others — on the face of it —  unfair, that allow government to seize

[ Page 8399 ]

private property without the due process of law, and without proper compensation.

Mr. J.V. Clyne, sitting as a royal commissioner, said in 1964 that the province's expropriation laws should be consolidated and the basis for compensation changed. In 1972, the then Mr. Justice Fulton, as chairman of the Law Reform Commission, made similar recommendations. He called for the establishment of a single tribunal to arbitrate all expropriations in B.C. He said that it is "fundamental justice that there should be adequate procedural safeguards to protect the individual citizen from the abusive exercise of expropriation powers in this province." Many hon. members, including a number on this side of the House, have spoken on this subject in recent years. The hon. Attorney-General, when he was in opposition, did so. He's aware of the need for this kind of legislation. Perhaps he can tell us why it's taking the government so long to get around to the drafting of a single bill to deal with this important matter of expropriation in a modern manner, in a manner befitting a democratic country in which the right to own property is a right endorsed by successive administrations, both federal and provincial, and which the provinces in particular have a duty to defend because of their responsibilities under our Canadian constitution for the administration of property and civil rights.

Perhaps the Attorney-General can also tell us how he thinks a sensitive and fair-minded administration would deal with the difficult problem of compensation when private property has to be taken for some public purpose. I personally don't think the simple market-value approach is good enough. There's often a special value attached to land, buildings and other assets, an admittedly enhanced value in the eyes of the owner. His or her anguish, inconvenience, disruption, and feeling of insecurity should be taken into account. Compensation, in other words, should have a humanitarian element to it and there should be an appeal — as in the case of a recent amendment to the B.C. transit act — to some authority other than the courts, one that can act promptly and with understanding when cases of this kind come forth.

No doubt the Crown will end up paying more for property under such legislation, but it's the only way in which government — impersonal government, big government, purposeful government — can properly deal with people and still retain not only their confidence and respect, but also a belief in the freedom of the individual and the democratic process in this country. We have to put the individual first in this province, and in Canada. One of the ways in which our provincial government can indicate its intentions in this regard is to deal both fairly and compassionately with those whose property is being taken from them. An expropriation act such as the new federal act in the early 1970s says it all, and says it with feeling. That's badly needed in British Columbia now.

Since I've only just now sent the Attorney-General a copy of my remarks and since he may want a little time to study my questions, I'll gladly yield the floor to anyone else who wants to pursue questions. I'll certainly be looking forward to what the hon. minister has to say on these two topics.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I an indebted to the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) for providing me with a copy of his notes, including the highlights.

MR. MACDONALD: The notes are very full.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have the highlights, so I've read those, and I've also had a chance to scan through the notes.

Dealing first of all with the matter of commercial crime, and at the same time the whole question of the cost of the enforcement of criminal law: there is no question that in the ideal society, if everyone were prepared to abide by the rules of society, including the rules of business, we would be able to avoid a tremendous burden of expense which is cast upon the taxpayer, in the support of our police forces and the administration of justice through the courts and into the corrections service. Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal society. As matter of fact, we live in a society which in many respects seems determined to proceed in just the opposite direction. Society has two choices: to establish through our laws standards of the nature of conduct considered appropriate and to insist on the adherence to those standards through the imposition of the criminal justice process and the penalties associated with it; or to give up standards altogether, creating a situation which I think on careful analysis neither the member nor society in general would prefer to have.

In the area of commercial crime, the unit of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in this province has grown. It was 70 members. I believe it is reduced from that figure at the moment. I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the commercial crime unit of the RCMP is part of the federal force and therefore not directly answerable to the Ministry of Attorney-General in this province. We do contribute to their work. We make available to them certain consultants and evidentiary facilities. As in the case of other federal crime units, we also provide them with prosecutorial service. That's because of the shared nature of the jurisdiction within which the commercial unit must operate — partly federal, but also partly provincial. Therefore this arrangement exists with regard to the commercial crime unit.

They must deal with conduct which, otherwise lawful, is used by unscrupulous persons to prey upon the unsuspecting public, who are entitled to expect and indeed must expect that business is conducted in the way of business and not in the way of crime. With modern business methods, with securities legislation, strict and detailed as it may be, there is still room for those people who are of an unscrupulous nature to utilize those rules for the conduct of business in order to defraud the unsuspecting public, whether it be in stock transactions or in the conduct of other opportunities which may be exposed to the public for the purposes of investment. When activities of that kind come to the attention of the authorities, the authorities must investigate because of the widespread damage that can be done to unsuspecting people — large and small. The small investor is as much at risk in this area as the large investor.

I can assure the members that with modern computer technology the opportunity for people to engage in affairs of this kind is enhanced, rather than diminished. It is possible, however, to use some of the same techniques in the detection of crimes of that nature. It is for this reason, and because of the tremendous profits that are available for crime of this kind, that attention has been focused to the RICO concept in the United States. The Ministry of Attorney-General in British Columbia has prepared an exhaustive study of what are properly called racketeering-influenced and corrupt organizations for the purpose of placing them before all the Attorneys-General in Canada and the Minister of Justice with recommendations that our criminal legislation in Canada be

[ Page 8400 ]

modified to accommodate the RICO concept. The RICO concept is simply that those people who engage in crime as a business — whether it be in the guise of legitimate business or not — and are therefore not easily susceptible to investigation, as is the case of the transactional criminal, can be called upon to account and the profits from crime, which are enormous, can be taken by the state as part of the penalty for such criminal activity.

The member asks a number of questions with regard to investigations of this kind. Who initiates these investigations? Investigations are almost invariably initiated by the commercial crime unit of the RCMP based upon complaints that they receive, either from individuals who have suffered at the hands of persons who engage in this kind of conduct; persons who suspect that this kind of conduct is going on and are able to identify it with some definition; law societies; accountancy societies; or the boards of directors of companies who, as a result of the conduct of their audit, have it drawn to their attention that certain criminal activities have taken place within their organizations. All of those are ways in which it can be identified, as I said a moment ago, that business is not being conducted in a way of business but in a way of crime. This also applies with respect to those aspects that the member commented upon in the statements from Superintendent Mullock, who was formerly head of the commercial crime unit in this province and has since been transferred to Manitoba.

With regard to crimes involving politicians it should be recognized that it's not suggesting that the politicians themselves are the criminals, but those crimes in which criminals seek to involve politicians for the purposes of the criminal enterprise. The politician may be innocently involved in the activities of criminals who seek to conduct their schemes contrary to the law through government agencies.

Who decides whether these investigations should be pursued or not? That is a judgment that is made by senior police officers once they have had an opportunity to make the initial examination, determined whether the enterprise they're investigating warrants further investigation and determined the nature of the crime and other related activities which may indicate that crimes in other areas can be established.

When and to whom do the police report? During the course of investigations, police will report to Crown counsel specialists in these fields, in the case of commercial crime, to determine whether or not the evidence which is being accumulated in the direction that the investigation is taking does indeed indicate the prospect of a crime which is proscribed by the Criminal Code. That's done during the course of the investigation, and when the commercial crime unit — and this applies in all crimes — is satisfied that they have exhausted their investigation, they then go with all of the evidence they have accumulated during the course of those investigations and lay that before Crown counsel, and take the advice of Crown counsel with respect to the application of the law in the identification of the charges, if any, that can be supported by the investigation and the evidence that can be adduced at court. When that step is over — I might as well give them all to you — it is then up to the police officers, or the officer in charge of the investigation, based upon the information which he has and the advice of Crown counsel, to swear the appropriate information before a justice of the peace and to be ready to be examined by the justice of the peace as to whether or not he has appropriate grounds upon which that information can be laid.

The fourth question was: "Do the police themselves recommend prosecution?" No, that's not the role of the police. In a professional system, such as operates in the province of British Columbia, the police investigate, the police lay their investigations before Crown counsel, the law is applied, and if charges are indicated, then it is the police officer's responsibility to swear the information. This does not say, however, that the police officer is precluded from swearing information even though he doesn't have the legal advice from Crown counsel.

The Criminal Code makes it clear that any person who believes that he has the appropriate grounds for swearing information may do so. Therefore in the final analysis it comes down to the conscience of the individual whether or not he or she is satisfied that, based upon the information available to them under the circumstances, they can appropriately swear the information; the consequences of not having that kind of information can be severe. But let me reinforce that in British Columbia, in the relationship of the criminal justice division and our police services, they function in a very professional way, where each discharges its responsibility in developing the matter up to and including the swearing of the information. From that time on it becomes almost entirely the responsibility of the Crown counsel.

The other matter that the member raised was the question of expropriation and why it had taken so long. We have been examining for many years in this province the many studies made into the matter of expropriation. We have in the past four years examined a number of expropriation models that could be appropriately applied in British Columbia, and it is my hope to place before this Legislature at its next session a modern expropriation statute which will serve the needs of British Columbia and all of the agencies which may require the use of expropriation to discharge their responsibilities. Some elements of that new legislation were adopted this year in the bill with respect to the Urban Transit Authority, but the legislation that will come forward — as I say, hopefully next year — will go much further than that particular bill.

On the question of value, that is also being considered with respect to the new legislation. There has been a variety of approaches. Our current thinking is that the fair market value concept is indeed the fairest for all concerned, provided that it is applied in those circumstances and that the expropriating agency is limited to expropriations of property which it can justify as being required for the purposes of the particular enterprise. We have, as of this year in the UTA legislation, a requirement that when that step is taken moneys must be paid by the expropriating authority at the front end, not long after the property is taken. If you examine the UTA legislation carefully, you will note — and I don't mean to impose upon the rules of the House — that there are some very serious penalties for the expropriating authority which carelessly addresses itself to the matter of value. They can be challenged with respect to that. There are means of having the value determined in circumstances where umpires or arbitration can be used, and each of the parties will have full opportunity to bring forward their consultants and appraisers in order to justify the position that they're taking. Equally, however, there is the possibility of some penalty for the owner of the property who carelessly, and in the face of evidence with respect to the fair market value, attempts to achieve significantly more than the arbitration body would award.

There is another problem that we have in this province in any new legislation dealing with this expropriation. There are

[ Page 8401 ]

now so many statutes dealing with expropriation that when we bring through the new legislation we will have to go through 22 or 23 present enactments and strip out of them the present expropriation requirements. While it may not seem like much of an effort, I can assure you that it is a difficult process, because it will require very careful amendment of all these other pieces of legislation.

MR. LORIMER: Yesterday I asked the Attorney-General about the $90,000 paid from public funds, by the direction of Olson for the benefit of his family, and why the agreements that were reached, dealing with public funds, have not been made public. And I asked him whether or not he intended to table in this House the documents referring to the agreements reached. This is not just an agreement between a lawyer and his client; this is an agreement, as I understand it, dealing with moneys put up by the taxpayers of this province. I submit that they have a right to know what arrangement was made with reference to these funds.

What is needed here is not secret government but open government, to let the people know — let the sun shine in and let the people see what arrangements have been made with reference to the disposal of that $90,000 or $100,000, whatever the amount was, of public funds. I wonder if the Attorney-General is now in a position to tell us whether he intends to make these agreements public in order that the people, who have a right to know, will know.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't recall this as being a matter raised by the member yesterday, and I apologize for not responding to it. The answer to the question is no, I do not consider it to be in the public interest at this time to table those documents.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm pleased to finally have this opportunity to bring this one item to the attention of the Attorney-General — an item which I have in fact brought to his attention as the minister responsible to this Legislature for native Indian affairs. This is the matter of allocation of funds to a certain group of people to assist in the construction of an airstrip on Denny Island at Bella Bella.

Some brief background. I don't want to take up the time of this House with the 14-year history of this particular project, but simply say that it has been agreed, particularly by the federal people, that that long stretch of coast between Vancouver Island and Prince Rupert does not have one landing strip in that whole distance and that a strip could be required somewhere in that area for coast guard purposes, safety purposes, refueling stops, convenience to the people in the community and all of those things. As a consequence of that and at the request of the Bella Bella band council over on Campbell Island, the federal government did in fact commission a study as to the best location of this airport in 1968. It was completed by 1970, and I had the opportunity of looking at that study at the Federal Ministry of Transport office in 1971 or 1972. The bottom line and results of that study were that while the people who did the study felt that there was not that much to choose between the two locations, the proposed site on Campbell Island would serve a far larger number of people — some 1,200 native Indian people live on Campbell Island at Bella Bella and 50 permanent residents are on Denny Island. The hospitals, schools and police facilities — all of these facilities — are located on Campbell Island. Since being elected to office I have made representation to various federal and provincial ministers and governments to assist the band with the proposed construction of this much-needed facility. There was the usual stalling, particularly by the federal government, and as a consequence about two and a half years ago a private group of people, some of whom are residents, for their own pecuniary interest decided to start construction of an airstrip on Denny Island. Many of these people, as this article points out, live all over the coast — Campbell River, Richmond, North Vancouver, Tsawwassen — hardly Bella Bella locals.

To bring this up to date, it was brought to my attention on June 7 of this year.... Before I get into this, I should tell you that I did approach the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) more than a year ago and requested at that time that no funds be forwarded to either group until the total matter of airport location in that area — which was a very serious matter, particularly to the people living there — had been resolved. In fact, as I recall, the minister did tell me that before a final decision was made on this matter he would contact me and seek my view on the matter.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The fact is, much to my surprise, that on June 7 of this year — a couple of weeks ago — it was brought to my attention that on June 4 the minister had in fact written to a society called the Denny Island Airport Society and promised that group of people $350,000 out of the air transport assistance program when that money became available.

Fair enough. I'm not knocking local initiative. If any group of people decide they want to build an airport, baseball field or that kind of facility, which they've done time and time again throughout my riding, or build their own road — as people did in Bella Coola at one point some 15 or 20 years ago — that's local initiative. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here in this particular case — and this is what concerns me.... First of all, you're doing a disservice to the 1,200 people....

I'll provide a little more background here. The two applications, one from the Bella Bella band council and one from the Denny Island group, went forward to the Minister of Highways at approximately the same time. As I recall, I think that the Campbell Island group preceded the Denny Island group by a month or two under the air transport assistance program. In the meantime, the Campbell Island group, the band council at Bella Bella, had applied to the federal government and had been assured of $250,000 from the federal government, should the provincial government come up with the $100,000, as requested, from the First Citizens Fund. I have correspondence here that indicates that the First Citizens Fund did in fact approve the $100,000 grant for the purpose of building an airport on Campbell Island, where the people live, thereby ensuring that the $250,000 would be forthcoming from the federal government.

Lo and behold, not too long ago — about three weeks ago — just prior to receiving this information that I quoted a few minutes ago, I received a phone call from Bella Bella that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), on his own initiative and against the pleasures, wishes and duties of the First Citizens Fund Advisory Committee had arbitrarily decided that he was not going to forward this $100,000 to the Bella Bella band council, thereby negating as well the $250,000 from the federal government. That is $350,000 down the tube for the native Indian people.

[ Page 8402 ]

The band council, the native Indian people living there, have charged, first of all, discrimination. It is a case of outright, blanket discrimination, favouring one group over another. That's what's happening with the Provincial Secretary and that government blocking that $100,000 grant from the First Citizens Fund. You have effectively killed the Campbell Island airport proposal, and, in my view, that's where the airport should have been.

Secondly, I can hardly believe that this small group of people, non-residents who have large investments on the Denny Island side and a lot to gain financially, would proceed with spending approximately $800,000 of their own money towards an airport site that has no access at all without some assurance from somebody, somewhere here in Victoria, that this $350,000 — and maybe more — would be forthcoming if they completed, or at least did a certain amount of work on, the Denny Island airport.

One has to ask the Attorney-General, and I certainly have to ask myself: was collusion involved? I don't know. You have to ask that question. Would any rational person or group of business people go out in the middle of the bush with no access, out in a veritable rock-pile, and spend $800,000 — people like Quesnel Redi-Mix, McLeod Crane Service or other names that have been put forward to me by the band council? Would any rational person do that? Not very likely, unless they had some assurance that funds would be forthcoming from the provincial government. The provincial government — if you cast your mind back a few minutes — did in effect block any chance that the Campbell Island people had of having that airport on the site where it belongs. With this airport, and when under the auspices of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways that road is punched through eventually — a very expensive road, because it's mostly rock work — 1,200 people on Denny Island will have to take a water taxi over to Denny Island, and if there's a medical emergency, because the hospital is located on Campbell Island, it will mean loading the stretcher into a water taxi, carrying this sick person up this rock bluff, and all the rest of it. It simply doesn't make sense.

What I'm suggesting to the Attorney-General is that he should use the powers of his office, as representing the native Indian people of this province, to have those funds withheld until there is a thorough and full investigation into the possibility of collusion. Where is the right location for that particular airport? Is there discrimination involved? Because in my view, if the provincial government proceeds in blocking this particular project over on Campbell Island as requested by the native Indian people living there, over their objections to these very few people living on Denny Island, I would think that this would be reflected to all of the native Indian people throughout the province as a Social Credit move and as sheer, outright, blatant discrimination.

I remind the Attorney-General of a Social Credit Party resolution passed unanimously at their party convention which states among other things that the Social Credit Party would recognize and rectify wrongs of the past and present grievances of the native Indian people of British Columbia. Is this an example of rectifying wrongs? The resolution goes on to say: "Be it further resolved that at all times the objectives of this Social Credit Party will be to encourage and not restrict self-help development to the native Indian people of British Columbia." This government is taking exactly the opposite tack.

I would like a full inquiry, Mr. Attorney-General, into this whole matter: the possibility of collusion, the problem of discrimination, the possibility of who's rubbing whose back, who are friends with the developers — because I happen to know that some of the people involved and some of the people receiving these funds have very high and influential friends in the government. These allegations should be checked out, in my view.

I must say, in all fairness, that when I discussed this matter with you personally, Mr. Attorney-General, you were sympathetic and understood the problem, but that is not good enough. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) actually made the decision. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is deeply involved by blocking — stonewalling — $100,000 of First Citizens Fund money which he is not directly responsible for. What's the point of having a committee if the Provincial Secretary is going to make those decisions on his own? Why don't you do away with that committee? These are serious allegations and will have very serious repercussions, not only in Denny Island and Campbell Island, but with all the native Indian people in British Columbia, and it's wrong. Mr. Attorney-General, what the government is doing now is wrong.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I have four topics that I would like to cover with the minister. I'd like to follow in line with the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) in dealing with the Olson case. I was wondering if the minister could go a little further in some of the remarks he was making yesterday dealing with improvements that may take place following the review of the investigation dealing with the Olson case. He suggested that there's going to be a closer liaison between all police departments in similar offences, such as murder. Because of the seriousness of this type of crime, and especially the crime of murder, have the RCMP or the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit considered establishing a murder investigation committee or team that would work on all murder cases? They could survey the evidence of similar crimes throughout the communities and the province.

I feel that there is a need for a better type of coordination immediately the crime is discovered. So many times in a crime of this nature, the initial two or three days of investigation are the most crucial part of that investigation. In some cases the investigation may come in the middle of the summer when a lot of people are away on holidays, and some departments do not have the manpower to put a full investigation into operation. If a team were prepared to move into any type of crime, and check out the circumstances that have taken place, they could see if there was a connection or correlation between that crime and similar crimes in other areas. I speak on this from the personal experience of one who was thrown in two weeks after a double murder took place. I know the frustration of trying to put something together with a team when the initial investigation was not allowed to proceed under the circumstances that needed to take place.

The minister also mentioned yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that looking back on the investigation with 20-20 hindsight, maybe there would have been a different operation, a different investigation and followup, put into effect. I agree with him. We all know that money is paid by police for information; none of us are naive enough to think that everything is discovered, but normally that fact does not become public information. It is not something that is bandied about as a kind of political Brownie point. I ask the minister, with 20-20

[ Page 8403 ]

hindsight, instead of trying to make political Brownie points would he never have mentioned that fact?

I feel that the fact payments were made is a fact of police life and investigation. The money and how it was paid is normally not public knowledge. The facts that come out in court are used to convict a person. It doesn't matter how factual evidence was obtained, as long as it was obtained in a manner that is not inadmissible for court evidence. I think this is the important part. I really believe that this type of discussion should never have ever taken place. It's not that I'm against freedom of information, but I believe that in an investigation of this nature, how the evidence was obtained is not important. The important thing is that the evidence was admissible in court and sufficient to support a charge and conviction. I think this is the important part, as long as it is done in a humane and decent way. These problems developed in this particular case. With 20-20 hindsight, we can learn a lot in investigations. I believe there is a need for a coordinated team, and it should be established to work on all such serious crimes. Perhaps it could be fostered by the minister, in cooperation with the RCMP or with CLEU.

I would like the minister's opinion on the question of raising the age limit for juveniles from 17 to 18. I realize it is a federal matter. But it is now accepted that a person is mature enough at age 16 to hold a driver's licence or to hold down a job.

Prior to the last changes in the Young Offenders Act, it was held that 16 was the age of maturity; they were taken out of the juvenile classification. From my experience I have found that the majority of kids involved in criminal offences are mature enough at age 16 to know the difference between right and wrong. To class them as juveniles until the age of 18 is, I think, not really looking at the facts. It does not give the juvenile a chance for rehabilitation. Over the age of 16 they are mature, and they know what they are doing. To continue to allow them to hide behind the skirts of the juvenile act is not helping the kids and it's not helping society. I'm not saying that as a bigoted redneck, but I think you'll find that it's a fact of life that a lot of these kids think it's a big joke.

The third issue I'd like to ask the minister's opinion on has to do with a new industry in the entertainment world, the video machines that are sprouting up all over the community — the video parlours. Basically they are no different from the slot machines or any other games of chance. When they move into a community I think they do suck a lot of money out of juveniles' allowances. It's the experience of many police departments when they go into the parlours and check out the cash boxes that in many cases the amount represents the same amount stolen from the community in break-ins, and especially from coin collections. From personal experience, I know that when they empty out the cash box, they find silver 25-cent pieces, and when they check the cash registers of the same enterprise they find 50-cent pieces and silver dollars that are worth far more for their silver content than face value. If you try to talk to some of the kids who are passing this money, they always say it's money that was given to them or it's their allowance. Coin collectors do not give away large numbers of silver coins to kids so they can play video machines.

I've gone into the community in the last few months and talked to the kids; they're plunking $25 into a machine in one evening. If they were adults, and working, and that was what they liked to do with their earnings, that would be their business. I don't think I'm a prude. But should there be an age limit?

A few months ago I was quite surprised when one of the all-night convenience stores was sponsoring a competition or tournament for an entry fee of $5, which was given to one of the charitable health groups. It was designed to attract juveniles from the ages of 8 to 15 to play the video machines. To me, when you're encouraging children of that age to play the video machines.... Not only do they waste a lot of money — you can put in $5 or $10.... The average working family does not give their kids an allowance to blow it on a video machine. What happens when the kids run out of allowance is that in many cases they're stealing from their brothers, sisters, mothers or neighbours. This is the effect I think the establishment of these video-machine parlours is having on a community.

I've gone through a number of areas in my own riding where those active in the community have opposed the opening of new parlours. If there are going to be any regulations.... As I said, I'm not trying to stop gambling. If people want to gamble, that is their business, but I think that gambling should at least be restricted to those aged 16 and over, or adults, and not left wide open for younger kids, especially when organizations and businesses run particular competitions where it is designed for a younger age.

There's one other issue I'd like to bring to your attention. I have talked to the minister about this. For the record, I would like to review the circumstances of this particular case. In 1980 a husband and wife were divorced in Prince Edward Island. The wife received custody of the child and later remarried and moved to British Columbia. She married a serviceman and was living in my particular riding. In late 1981 the husband appeared in the Prince Edward Island supreme court and made an ex parte application for custody of the child. The husband and his lawyer came out to Victoria with an ex parte application and made an application in the Victoria supreme court for an order for the police, sheriffs or RCMP to pick up that child.

I believe that the courts have a certain responsibility. If any parent makes an application for custody of a child, even though another parent already has legal custody, on certain occasions or in certain cases the ex parte application is justified. The one thing I cannot accept is that an order can be given by the courts, can be enforced by the peace officers, sheriffs or RCMP, and that they can go into a school and apprehend a six- or seven-year-old child and take the child out of the province. At no time was the mother ever advised that an ex parte application was before the courts. The courts were situated within three miles of her home. The school they went into to pick up the child was literally blocks away from the mother's home, where she was. At no time should anyone — a father who made an application.... I believe there are occasions where fathers or mothers have a right to make an application, but there must be a different system. If the court is going to issue an order to pick up a child, at least there should be some instruction to bring the child before the courts so that the mother, who still has — as far as she knows — legal custody of that child, has an opportunity to oppose it, or to present and listen to any evidence that might be submitted. This has a traumatic effect on a family and on the respect that mothers, fathers or members of the community have for a court system that will allow something so inhuman. I say it is inhuman that one member of a dissolved marriage can come

[ Page 8404 ]

from another part of Canada into an area and with the support.... And they tell me it's legal for them to come in, make an ex parte application and send the police out to pick up the child, and not once inform the mother.

In this particular case, the only time the mother was advised was when the father's lawyer, who is herself a mother, was so shocked that she notified a court worker in the probation service to advise the mother that her child would not be home for dinner. There have to be some changes, and I sincerely recommend that if an ex parte application is to be granted, before it is issued and before the child is removed from the community, if the court wishes to order it, the child should be taken to some foster home or back to the court, and the mother should be notified. If possible, the order should be served on the mother, not given to a police officer to go into a school and actually pick up the child without the mother's ever being notified.

I would like to make another recommendation to the minister: serious consideration should be given to these particular issues. Divorce is, as we all know, a civil matter. Divorces themselves, in fact all domestics, are about the worst thing the courts have to deal with on a regular basis, and one of the most disruptive parts of policing. As the particular section of the court is civil, why couldn't the application for picking up children, or any other service of a civil nature, be given to the sheriff's office? Policemen have to work within the community and they have to earn respect. Using police for this type of operation, this type of enforcement, does not help either their image or their ability to develop respect within the families.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In this particular case, many people saw it in the same way as I did; they were shocked, and they seemed to hold this against the police. I think the police were misused in this particular case, and I would like the minister to give serious consideration to this. When a child is going to be apprehended and taken out of the province, before it is removed from British Columbia the person who has legal custody should at least have an opportunity to present their side of the case within British Columbia. The expense of flying back and forth to Prince Edward Island, hiring lawyers to have a divorce settlement order changed, is very heavy on an average working family. I think it's unnecessary; there must be a better way. I would seriously ask the minister what proposed changes, if any, he may have on this particular case.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) raised a matter dealing with the construction of an airstrip at Denny Island and queried whether or not that should have been done in the face of a proposal for the construction of an airstrip on Campbell Island, which is nearby. This matter properly belongs in the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I will only respond in respect of one aspect, which is the funds in the First Citizens Fund and the relationship of the advisory board of that fund to the Provincial Secretary.

This fund is used for a variety of native Indian purposes. Application was made to this fund for moneys in connection with the proposal to build an airport on Campbell Island. This has been a matter which, as the member pointed out, has been under consideration for a long time. I was asked about the advance of the money from the First Citizens Fund, and because I am aware that the federal government has for years declined to indicate its acceptance of Campbell Island as an appropriate location for the construction of an airport, and therefore, through the federal Ministry of Transport, was not prepared to construct an airport on Campbell Island, I suggested to the Provincial Secretary that he should not pay the moneys of the First Citizens Fund in respect of the proposal unless and until the federal government indicated clearly that it was prepared to support the construction of an airstrip on Campbell Island.

With respect to why it's being built on Denny Island and what is being done, the airport assistance fund, which is under the Minister of Transportation and Highways.... I would suggest that the member restate his problems when that minister's estimates are before the House.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), asked about investigation teams. As I indicated yesterday, the RCMP have moved within their own organization to shorten the lines of communication to ensure that interdetachmental information flows more quickly. As between the RCMP itself, the detachments that it operates in the province and those other municipal forces in this province, we have through the organizations of Vancouver Island and Vancouver JFO the opportunity for the RCMP to interrelate with information between those forces. That system, we believe, is appropriate for inter-force relationship, and that was functioning during the investigation into the Olson crimes. What has been improved since the spring of this year is the internal reporting relationship within E division, which the deputy commissioner identified as needing some improvement.

On the matter of payments to informants, I must say that the prospect of not disclosing the matter was never an issue in the case of Olson, because within a matter of days after the arrangement was concluded by the RCMP and with Mrs. Olson's lawyer, we found that it was of general knowledge within the police community. It wasn't much longer than a week or ten days after the event that we were aware that the news services in the province were aware of it. They were, however, responsible in the use of that information, recognizing, as I know they do, that the pre-release of such information might have interfered with the administration of justice and the concept of a fair trial. They restrained themselves until after his plea of guilty.

You mentioned the question of the age of young offenders being increased under the new legislation from 16, which has been used in some provinces. We've used 17 and it's gone now to 18. Frankly I think that it was a mistake. It was done, I'm advised, by the Solicitor-General of Canada for two reasons. One was in the interest of consistency, and the other was to avoid challenges under the charter with regard to age discrimination. The concern that I have — and it's one that was mentioned by the member — is the fact that there are many 16-, 17- and almost 18-year-olds who, unfortunately, are already experienced street-wise criminals, and yet they will be dealt with under the young offenders legislation. However, our concern is broader than that. We will be obliged to raise these young offenders up into adult court more often than has recently been the practice. It has not been the practice of criminal justice to raise juveniles into adult court except in the most serious cases. We expect that we will see an increase in the number of instances when we have to make application to raise. And I think that will, in many respects, diminish the value of the young offenders legislation.

[ Page 8405 ]

You also raise the matter of video machines, and this works together. The kids who are drawn to these stores and the like that have video machines often fall in this age category. As you properly point out, this has been the experience in the city of Vancouver, which has led them to take some action. Flowing from the expenditures that take place using video machines like Pacman and Star Wars and whatever, and the tremendous attraction they seem to have for the young people, I think elements of petty crime will be on the increase. Unfortunately, with respect to the operation of video machines, they're not like slot machines. There are no prizes that we are aware of and they're under careful observation. Therefore they're not contrary to the Criminal Code. The way in which they can best be controlled is by municipal bylaw, as the city of Vancouver is doing with some success.

You mentioned that there was gambling, and I think it should be clear that if these video games are used in the way of gambling, then it is an offence, and the operators of those machines or the owners of the establishment in which they are found will face criminal prosecution if that's the case. You mentioned one instance when people pay to play. That sounds to me like it's a lottery, and that may also be an offence under the Code. If conduct of that kind is taking place, then the players and the owners of the establishments can expect to be dealt with very harshly.

In the case of the custody of the infant — I won't use the name — I sometimes wonder how cruel we can be in the interests of what we think is a just approach to the resolution of some of these problems, and I think this is a classic case. I want to thank the member for giving me advance notice and the opportunity to do some investigation. May I just say that the investigation is not yet complete. We are going extensively into this file. Like the member, I think what was done here was wrong and that the wrong criterion was applied in dealing with this particular case.

Just to restate it for the record, a man and a wife were divorced. They had lived in an eastern province and the mother was awarded custody of their son. This was in March 1981. She then subsequently remarried. There were some problems with regard to access of the father to the child, and at least one application was made by the father to restrain the mother from removing the child from its home province. The mother and her son and the mother's new husband then moved to British Columbia in November of that year. In December 1981, a month after the mother came here, her former husband, the father of the boy, went to the court in the eastern province and applied for and succeeded in varying the divorce order so that he was given custody. I have a copy of the order, and it indicates that the wife's lawyer was present when that order was made. That's the area which is still under investigation, because I gather the wife says that she didn't have a lawyer at that time, but the record that we have indicates that she was represented. I want to get to the bottom of that aspect. So the court that originally made the divorce order and granted the custody to the mother subsequently varied the order and gave custody to the father.

In those circumstances, the father, all things being right up to that time, was the person entitled to lawful custody of the young boy. He came to British Columbia and made application, under our laws, for an order giving him actual possession, which would authorize him or a peace officer — not necessarily a police officer but a peace officer; it could have been the sheriff — to take actual physical custody of the son. This order was made ex parte, without notice to the mother, which has been, I find to my surprise, the practice in this province. The reason is the concern that, if you give notice to the mother, she somehow or other will scurry around and hide the boy or spirit him away, so that even if the order is properly made and the father gets custody he won't be able to find him.

That may be the kind of game that's played between adults. My concern is that while that game is being played, one way or the other it's that six-year-old child who gets hurt. If the mother in this case had in fact been given notice and then had gone to the school and spirited the child away, and drove to Nanaimo, Campbell River or Vancouver, I think that's not good for the six-year-old child. It also isn't good for the six-year-old child to have the father, the father's lawyer and the police officer go to the school, pick the kid up and bundle him off to eastern Canada. Here's a six-year-old who gets up in the morning, takes his lunch bucket and goes off to school, and at some time during the afternoon somebody takes him away to an airplane and flies for four hours to eastern Canada. I don't know how the adults feel about it, but I can't imagine that it would be something the six-year-old would easily understand.

That's the situation. I've told you what happened. The father had the lawful right to apply in this province for an order, and under our rules it was appropriate to make the order without giving notice to the mother. I think that's wrong. When this investigation is complete, I intend to take steps to ensure that it stops — unless it can be definitely established that there's going to be some harm to the child. Like the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), I think in those circumstances a peace officer should be dispatched to the school and say: "Bring the child down so that he can be here and we'll notify the mother." Then everybody knows what's going on and we can avoid these repetitious applications in court. As the member knows, later the same day, when the mother finally got wind of it, she got a lawyer, rushed to another judge and got the opposite order, but by that time it was too late. So we had about five applications in court — three in eastern Canada, two in British Columbia — while a father and a mother fought over possession of a six-year-old boy.

MS. BROWN: What about the family advocate?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's no problem about the family advocate in these particular matters. The member keeps raising extraneous matters. The problem in this case was not the absence of the family advocate; the problem was failing to tell the mother that there was going to be a court proceeding to deal with lawful custody of and access to her son. That should have been tried and dealt with properly and she should have had her chance to make her answer to whatever the case was. Then we wouldn't be making these extensive efforts to investigate not only what has happened here, but what has happened in eastern Canada. I am agreeing with the member. I think it's wrong. When I get the information from eastern Canada that we're seeking with regard to the proceedings back there, I will be happy to share that information with him and with his constituent who raised the matter.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to do, if I may, is to send over to the minister a copy of the Barristers and Solicitors Act, with some suitable passages marked. As I

[ Page 8406 ]

am not a member of his trade union, I may have some difficulty discussing this with him, so if the Page would take over a marked copy to the minister we can probably have this debate — with your assistance, Mr. Chairman.

Just a year ago in this House we were discussing the minister's responsibilities as head of his department. In question period, on a couple of occasions we asked him about the appointment of one of his senior personnel, Mr. Jessiman. A year ago we were advised by the minister on a couple of occasions that Mr. Jessiman was an assistant deputy minister.

On another occasion we were told he was not an assistant deputy minister. I don't want to put words in the minister's mouth, but certainly the answers we got from the minister were a little confusing as to what Mr. Jessiman's actual rank and role were at this time last year. Be that as it may, the last and best information we have was from the minister when he said that Mr. Jessiman could be looked on to be an individual with a senior role in his department. I mentioned at the time that he was listed in various directories as an Assistant Deputy Attorney-General. In various articles that appeared in the public service press and a couple of learned journals he was also so listed.

In answer to further questions, the Attorney-General said that Mr. Jessiman did go back and forth to Winnipeg from time to time, but indicated that that was not likely to continue.An examination of public accounts indicates that from August 1980, when Mr. Jessiman came on board, to the end of that fiscal year that public accounts have been filed in this House, Jesco Financial Services for 1980-81 has received $49,849. That's for roughly half a year's work.

Have we indeed employed a company, or have we employed a person? I think it now should be clear that there is some confusion. In the marked act that I sent over to the Attorney-General, it appears to indicate to me — and I'm not a lawyer — that a company cannot practise law; that no corporation can engage in the practice of law; that the practice of law includes agreeing to place at the disposal of another person the services of a barrister or solicitor; that a person should be deemed to engage in the practise of law who does those kinds of things. So as a back-bench MLA without these learned letters behind my name, I'm asking the minister some simple questions. What, how and where is Mr. Jessiman? What, how, where and why was the sum of $49,849 expended in fiscal 1980-81? Thirdly, does Mr. Jessiman still spend one week per month in Winnipeg? Lastly, can he tell us that this new way of conducting...?

I want to assure the minister that none of my questions are couched in a pejorative sense, because when I was a minister myself and on Treasury Board, one of the problems I had was dealing with an Attorney-General, and listening constantly to other Attorneys-General, telling me that they couldn't find qualified lawyers for the going rate, that they couldn't find in their purse enough money to pay the going rate for lawyers.I'm wondering whether or not we've got one rule for public servants who aren't lawyers and one rule for public servants who are lawyers. If we were to cut back on public service, if restraint is the word, if we're not going to go first-class with public servants, then let's follow it all the way through.

It seems to me that the Attorney-General has found some magic formula for getting his own way, that indeed he's setting up a different system altogether. I want to explore that with the Attorney-General, if I may, because what I'm asking him is those three questions first of all. Who, what, where, why? What does $49,000 represent? Does Mr. Jessiman spend a week per month in Winnipeg or thereabouts? What has it done to the morale of the department? What are the career paths now for young lawyers? If we've not got in legal services — I guess that's the civil side of things.... Do you now have to join Jesco Financial Services to get promoted? Do the articles and interviews that have appeared with Mr. Jessiman and his predictions now come to pass? Those are the questions I'd like to ask the minister about this gentleman. I'm sure he's a splendid lawyer and provides firstclass legal advice, but the question is, can he, by virtue of our Barristers and Solicitors Act? Has he, by virtue of the money we've expended? Does he, in terms of the time he spends here? What is going on in terms of this gentleman who is the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General of legal services on the civil side? I think the House is entitled to some sort of explanation. Others seem to do lots of the work for Mr. Jessiman. I would imagine that the morale of the department should be examined and that the career paths open for young and old lawyers under the aegis of the Attorney-General should be closely examined.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm happy to respond to the matters raised by the second member for Surrey, and hopefully can correct the misunderstanding that still continues since our discussions on this matter last year.

Mr. Ian Jessiman is a barrister and solicitor who is a member of the bars of the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia. He has been a member of the British Columbia bar, I think, for nine or ten years, having joined the Law Society of British Columbia in the course of his law practice that he formerly carried on in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Jessiman, as well as being a highly skilled lawyer, has interested himself for a number of years in matters of law practice management. He has become well known as a specialist in that field. I first met Mr. Jessiman four years ago when he was retained by the Ministry of Attorney-General to examine our organization in the ministry with respect to legal services to government, which is the civil side of the ministry's law firm — to put it that way. Following the resignation of Assistant Deputy Attorney-General Bird, who was head of legal services to government, we searched for a replacement. We recognized that we still had a major administrative and management problem to undertake in the legal services to government side of the ministry. We discussed with Mr. Jessiman whether or not he would be available to come, other than on a project basis. After some negotiations with him, he agreed to come to British Columbia under a contractual arrangement made with his company, which is called Jesco Financial Services.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

He is not an Assistant Deputy Attorney-General; he has never been appointed to that position. He is not an assistant deputy minister; he has never been appointed to that position. But frankly, I look forward to the day in the not too distant future when he will be able to assume that role. He is identified in the ministry properly — irrespective of what any careless publication might say, even if it's a government publication — not as a director, but simply as the head of legal services to government. His role is that of an administrator. He does not give legal, opinions, even though he is a fully qualified barrister and solicitor in this province and capable of giving legal opinions. That's not his role. He is here as an

[ Page 8407 ]

administrator in the course of continuing to develop the legal services to government aspect of the ministry.

He has approached this by establishing for the first time in Canada, in any provincial government, the concept of what I refer to as a public service law firm. He has developed for each of the ministries of government a team of lawyers who provide legal services from the Ministry of Attorney-General to the various ministries. He has developed the constitutional and administrative law side of the ministry's responsibility. They function under a director who is a full-time public servant, and they function as lawyers. Mr. Jessiman is responsible, however, for the organization of that entire unit.

As a consequence of this approach, two things have happened. First, we have in the Ministry of Attorney-General been able to deliver a better level of legal service to the various ministries. We have been able to engage specialists in certain aspects of the law for that purpose. We have been able to build a counsel group who appear regularly for the government, on instructions from all ministries, in the courts of this province. We have developed, on the constitutional and administrative law side, lawyers who appear in administrative tribunals and on constitutional matters in all of our courts, from the provincial court to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The second consequence of Mr. Jessiman's efforts is that we have retained fewer lawyers from the private sector and are now in the position of providing, on the civil side, a level of legal service and advice which matches that which we have on the criminal side. Only in exceptional cases, when the facilities of a larger law firm are required to deal with a particular issue, such as when the government was involved in the constitutional challenge with the other provinces, with the references in the three courts of appeal in Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec, and from there to the Supreme Court of Canada, when we used the distinguished constitutional lawyer, Mr. Goldie.... We retained him because of the level of expertise he had and the kind of service his law firm could give. That's the kind of special-interest legislation where we still go to the private sector. We have been able to reduce the expenditures in the private sector of the bar for work required for legal services to government.

One of the consequences of that, aside from improving the quality of legal services this ministry renders, is to provide an improved career path for lawyers who want to come and work in the Ministry of Attorney-General. We are engaging lawyers who come to work for the Ministry of Attorney-General on the civil side instead of going to private practice, and offer them a variety and quality of work that has heretofore never been the case. The opportunities for advancement are greater, and therefore the opportunity for the improvement of their careers, both in the their abilities as counsel and in the way in which they can discharge their obligations to government. Based upon the experience gained with us, if they subsequently choose to go back into the private sector they will have done a variety of work which many lawyers in the private sector never have the opportunity to do.

As well as being involved on the civil side of legal services to government, which I mentioned, it has been the responsibility of Mr. Jessiman to completely reorganize the office of public trustee. It is a major undertaking, which will enable the offices of the public trustee throughout the province to discharge a level of service not heretofore possible. He will be able to take responsibility away from government agents throughout the length and breadth of the province, under the Administration Act, which the government agents and the Ministry of Finance believe should be dealt with by the Ministry of Attorney-General. In that respect we will, under Mr. Jessiman's direction, probably have, with the office of the public trustee, the largest trust company in the province, dealing only with those estates that properly fall within the work of the public trustee.

Under Mr. Jessiman's leadership we have also taken a major role in a program for articled students. We now are able to compete with the major law firms in this province in obtaining, from the law schools at the University of British Columbia and at the University of Victoria, top-ranking students who seek to have their articles in the Ministry of Attorney-General. Because of the quality of lawyers that we attract, the quality of experience is available to them as students. That's Mr. Jessiman's job. I'm delighted that we have the opportunity to make this arrangement with Mr. Jessiman. As I said a few moments ago, I look forward anxiously to the day when he will be able to make a decision to come as an Assistant Deputy Attorney-General.

MR. HALL: Well, I thank the minister for that answer, and I wish we had had a lot more of that information when we started asking the questions a year ago. We might have been able to enjoy the rise, the work, the diligence and all those other attributes of Mr. Jessiman these past 12 months, as indeed the minister appears to have done.

However, may I return to two more pedestrian questions. One, does Mr. Jessiman still spend one week per month in Winnipeg? And secondly, could the minister, if not today, bring to the House or to the second member for Surrey the approximate amount of money that Mr. Jessiman has received in fiscal 1981-82?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If you asked those questions before I'm sorry I didn't have a note of them.

Yes, he still goes to Winnipeg in the last week of each month; it's part of the winding up of his affairs in that province. When he has that completed, as I say, I'm looking forward anxiously to having him here as the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General. because that phase of the transition will be complete.

Mr. Jessiman is paid at the equivalent level of an assistant deputy minister. If you want the specific figure, I'll be happy to provide it for you.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, there may be a simple explanation, but from August to the end of March Mr. Jessiman received almost $50,000. That doesn't appear to be the rate of an assistant deputy minister, unless they're being paid a lot more than when I last had a bottle of Pepsi with an assistant deputy minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He's paid at the top level of the ADM. I think in the expenditure year to which the member is referring there were certain expenses involved with his relocation. But as I say, I'll get you the figures. There's no secret about it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing here with a department that is quite well run and well headed in what is a spendthrift and profligate government. In a time of restraint there is no excuse for the increases in expenditure on the part of this and other departments of this government.

[ Page 8408 ]

Some of them are more extravagant in their profligacy than this particular department. Nevertheless, people are suffering and being urged to show restraint. This government does not know the meaning of the word restraint when it comes to their own expenditures and budgeting.

In the minister's office, vote 10, we see travel up 37.3 percent, we see office expense up 50 percent and we see office furniture up 285.7 percent. It's the principle of the thing. In moving that this vote be reduced, I'm thinking more of the principle of the restraint that is being imposed upon people by a government that doesn't know the meaning of the word. Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 10 be reduced by the sum of $12,600. That's the excess over last year. In a time of restraint you should be able to budget at the same level, and you know that.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 10 approved.

On vote 11: administration and support services, $61,814,944.

MR. MACDONALD: I move that vote 11 be reduced by the amount of its superfluity over the previous year's estimates: $4,528,830.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 11 approved.

Vote 12: superior and county judiciary, $1,897,930 — approved.

Vote 13: provincial judiciary, $9,366,316 — approved.

Vote 14: police services, $65,895,693 — approved.

Vote 15: court services, $43,191,802 — approved.

Vote 16: corrections, $74,430,116 — approved.

On vote 17: legal services to government, $8,668,456.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is legal services to government. The department has been giving the rest of the ministers very bad advice, but in addition to that, for the cogent reasons already stated, I move that vote 17 be reduced by the sum of $121,877.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 28

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

[ Page 8409 ]

Vote 17 approved.

Vote 18: criminal justice, $13,844,474 — approved.

Vote 19: statutory services, boards, commissions, $35,632,301 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
VANCOUVER CHARTER

On a motion by Mr. Mussallem, Bill PR402, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.