[ Page 5489 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Riding representation. Mr. Macdonald –– 5489

Sooke Forest Products Ltd. Mr. Mitchell –– 5489

Military research. Mr. Nicolson –– 5489

Forestry budget cuts. Mr. Howard –– 5490

Hospital waiting-lists. Mrs. Dailly –– 5490

Mr. MacWilliam

Ministerial Statement

Funding for Canadian Commercial Bank. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5491

Mr. Stupich

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

On vote 11: minister's office –– 5491

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Mitchell

Ms. Brown

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Williams

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the galleries today are gentlemen from my constituency: first of all, Mr. Dave Gamble, who is the publisher of the Summerland Review; and secondly — in your gallery, Mr. Speaker — Dr. Karr and Frank Laird from Penticton, who are here to meet with the Minister of Health on hospital matters. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have 60 grade 10 students from Fraser Valley Christian High School in the Fleetwood area of Surrey. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this afternoon is one of those hard-working individuals who serves the community very well, a government agent of our province. I'd like the House to welcome Lynne Tripp, the government agent at Fernie and an alderman in the municipality of Fernie. I'd like the House to welcome him this afternoon.

Oral Questions

MRS. DAILLY: To the minister…. Oh, he's not there either. We're having difficulties, as you can presume. There are so few ministers here that you'll have to give a moment to adjust for the one who is here.

I wonder if the Attorney-General will be arriving momentarily. Does anyone know?

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Well then, go ahead.

RIDING REPRESENTATION

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. I have poor eyesight, and I'm not concerned with whether he is here or not. I ask the Attorney-General the following question: in view of the fact that the constituency of Coquitlam-Moody....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we must have the question addressed to someone, even an acting….

MR. MACDONALD: To the acting Attorney-General. In view of the fact that Coquitlam-Moody is 462 square miles and Central Fraser Valley is 160 square miles, and Coquitlam-Moody has 1,300 people more than Central Fraser Valley, my question to the acting Attorney-General is this: under the Charter of Rights — section 15, guaranteeing equality under the law and the protection of the law — will the Attorney-General refer the constitutionality of the redistribution system in the province of British Columbia to the constitutional experts in his ministry and report back to the House?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I am the acting acting Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: You've been taking acting lessons.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Not necessarily so, but I would be glad to take the question as notice, Mr. Member. I will relay it immediately to the Attorney-General on your behalf and bring to his attention the copy of Hansard, with the questions asked.

SOOKE FOREST PRODUCTS LTD.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm lucky I have my minister here — the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. MITCHELL: I can't use his name; he knows who he is.

Though we haven't had any financial statement from the minister on the recent bailout of a chartered bank in Edmonton, my question is…. Tomorrow the creditors of Sooke Forest Products will be meeting in a bankruptcy hearing on the mainland. In view of the government's report in the media that they have bailed out this chartered bank in Alberta, have the minister or the government made any effort to assist Sooke Forest Products to provide jobs in that area, to get that mill back on the road?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Inasmuch as the question relates to Sooke Forest Products, I would think that it would be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Forests.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, not that I would like to disagree with the Minister of Finance, but it is he who makes recommendations to the cabinet for the disbursement of funds. This is what Sooke Forest Products needs: some assistance to get that operation back in production. The question, again to the Minister of Finance, is: has the government, or has his ministry, made any attempt to assist Sooke Forest Products in their financial difficulties? I don't want to have it diverted to the Minister of Forests, because that is not his prerogative.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Finance who receives proposals, recommendations and requests for expenditure, but he does not initiate them in line ministries. I think the member appreciates that. I would again refer the member to the appropriate minister to answer a question relative to Sooke Forest Products.

MILITARY RESEARCH

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the acting Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Can he confirm that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) today made a statement that the British Columbia government is interested in undertaking research on the U.S. Star Wars weapons system?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will take the question as notice and get back to the House.

MR. NICOLSON: A new question to the acting minister. When did the government decide to shift its research and development efforts in the direction of warfare research?

[ Page 5490 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: The member knows that that is an incorrect statement. But I will take that incorrect statement back to the minister too, for his response.

[2:15]

MR. NICOLSON: I have a new question to the Premier. Has the government decided to pursue weapons research, or is the minister pursuing the role of Dr. Strangelove purely on his own initiative as a private member?

The Premier did come in a little bit late. A statement has been attributed to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications that British Columbia is going to undertake Star Wars weapons research. I ask the Premier whether it is the government that has decided to pursue weapons research, or is the minister pursuing the role of Dr. Strangelove as a private member?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about statements attributed to the minister. Certainly I will find out the authentic remarks and not deal with statements attributed; that puts us in a very difficult situation. I can remember once, Mr. Speaker, that somebody attributed intelligence to the member for Vancouver Centre and that's why I'm very careful about things that are attributed rather than fact. Therefore I will listen to what the minister has to say. I know you're very interested in what the response will be.

FORESTRY BUDGET CUTS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the acting Minister of Forests. Can he confirm or tell the House whether there is today in Victoria a meeting of provincial regional forest managers, called for the purpose of discussing the impact upon those regions of cuts in the forestry budget?

HON. MR. SMITH: I take the question as notice for the Minister of Forests.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask another question then. Could the minister tell the House the extent to which the budgetary cuts will be applied to services at each of the forest regions in the province? In other words, what services are to be curtailed within those regions as a result of the curtailment of funds in the budget?

MR. SPEAKER: That would appear to be almost a supplementary to a question taken on notice.

HON. MR. SMITH: Insofar as a question was asked, and notwithstanding the rather dire and incorrect assumptions contained in that question, I will take what remains back to the Minister of Forests for an answer to the House.

MR. HOWARD: Sometimes we're better off with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). Forestry in the province isn't, though. Can the minister confirm that there will be approximately 160 jobs lost in the Forest Service as a result of the budget cuts?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will take that question as notice.

MR. HOWARD: Can the acting minister tell me why he, along with the Minister of Forests, participated in permitting his colleagues to cut $3 million out of the silviculture segment of the forestry budget and at the same time tack $2 million extra onto the propaganda budget of the Provincial Secretary?

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

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll take the small portion of the question that's in order back to the Minister of Forests for his answer.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, that was a question to the acting minister as to why he did that himself. Obviously he has no answer as to why he did it.

HOSPITAL WAITING-LISTS

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Health. A recent survey of hospitals in B.C. shows that there continue to be long waiting-lists for so-called elective surgery, especially in the interior of the province. Prince George, for example, has a waiting-list of more than 2,000. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that British Columbians can receive timely surgical treatment when a diagnosis is made by their doctors?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the question is rather interestingly written by whoever wrote it. Diagnosis does not necessarily mean that surgery is required. There are waiting-lists at various hospitals, there are personal waiting lists of various physicians, and, as the chairman of the B.C. Health Association said the other day, many hospitals use waiting-lists as leverage to try to get more money for various projects. Waiting-lists are for the convenience of the patient, the hospital and the physician. There are many reasons why waiting-lists vary in size throughout the province, depending on which hospital or physician may be involved.

No one in British Columbia is required to wait a period of time for emergency or urgent surgery anywhere in B.C. There are many instances where people require elective surgery. By the very nature of the words "elective surgery," it is not an emergency and it is not urgent. There are certain physicians in the province who themselves have a waiting-list which may exceed a year. There are equally competent surgeons who may be able to take care of the matter in a much shorter period of time. Waiting-lists per se mean very little across the province when it comes to the required surgery for those citizens who are in an emergency or urgent situation. It's a minor game played by some people with numbers.

MRS. DAILLY: I choose to quote from the people who are out there suffering right now, waiting to get into the hospital, not from some member of the bureaucracy in the hospital administration.

My question to the minister is: for the people out there now — and I know he has received letters in his ministry, as have all the MLAs — who are suffering trauma because they can't get in the hospital, because it's considered elective.... What is he doing to solve the problems of those people, who I know have written to him personally?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Very few people indulge in that type of letter-writing without the encouragement of their physicians. Most citizens in the province of British Columbia

[ Page 5491 ]

understand and appreciate the hospital system we have. There are many situations where persons who may require elective surgery themselves cancel the date because it is not convenient to their personal schedule, or the physician may not be able to perform on that day because he is required elsewhere, or the hospital may find itself in a position where there are so many emergency cases that they can't take care of that surgery. That's part of the procedure; it always has been.

Waiting-lists can vary day by day, week by week, month by month. The average length of time a person waits for surgery in the province is not that long. It depends upon the condition of the individual. In more than one instance, when a person is advised that a hospital can now perform the surgery, quite frequently the person will say: "I've changed my mind, and I don't want it."

We have had instances, and some members have brought it to my attention, where a person who required a certain type of cardiovascular surgery was advised he had to wait nine months until we advised him that if he saw a different surgeon he could get in within two weeks. So waiting-lists are whatever one wishes to make of them.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I find the minister's comments rather interesting, in terms of a specific question I have for him, if I may just outline it. A gentleman in Lumby — as a specific example — has been waiting for surgery since June 1983 for spinal disc fusion. He is unable to work until that operation is done. He has had several consultants, and he clearly requires the operation; he's in a great deal of pain. I want, basically, to seek a promise from the minister to investigate what I consider to be a totally unacceptable situation which denies this person his ability to work while having a lengthy delay for what I consider to be emergency surgery. He's waited since June 1983.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I welcome the member's question. I would ask him to provide me with the information as to who the patient is. We will gladly investigate why any person in British Columbia would wait two years for a relatively simple surgical procedure, a spinal fusion. I would very much like to get that information. I think the details of that specific case may be quite interesting. I would caution the member not to make decisions as to what is an emergency.

FUNDING FOR CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK

HON. MR. CURTIS: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Mr. Speaker, on March 25, 1985, the Hon. Barbara McDougall, Minister of State for Finance for the government of Canada, and the Hon. Lou Hyndman, Provincial Treasurer for the government of Alberta, issued statements indicating that those two governments, Canada and Alberta, along with the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and the six largest Canadian chartered banks, would provide for an infusion of capital to strengthen the Canadian Commercial Bank in Edmonton.

In addition to the infusion of capital indicated above, the governments of Canada, British Columbia and Alberta have undertaken to provide support through the purchase of subordinated debt of the bank.

The Canadian Commercial Bank, although based headquartered, if you will — in Edmonton, has a significant number of British Columbia depositors, and in addition the bank is an important source of financing for a wide range of western Canadians. As a result, after careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, the government of British Columbia has taken responsible action in supporting the bank through the purchase of $13 million of subordinated debt. Again, this action is being taken in the interests of western Canadians generally and, in particular, of a large number of British Columbians

Mr. Speaker, I assure you and the House that at an early and an appropriate date I will make a further statement to the members with additional information for all hon. members regarding the circumstances which led to the province of British Columbia's participation in this matter.

MR. STUPICH: In view of the publicity, we certainly welcome the ministerial statement at this point in time, and also welcome the news that there will be further information at a later date. Out of consideration for the people involved and the risks that we might run in trying to say too much or ask too much, I think we have not much else to say at this particular point in time, except that we await with interest the minister's statement when he is ready.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 11: minister's office, $223,385.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 11 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Vote 12 — resolved a sum not exceeding....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if one wouldn't chat so much, one could hear what the Chair was saying. Does the second member for Vancouver Centre wish to speak to vote 11?

[2:30]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I should point out that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not even in the committee. Don't focus attention on me.

Perhaps the committee has other business that we can move on to — some other minister — because we....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Carry on. I'll take notes.

MR. LAUK: All right. Yesterday I asked the minister, with respect to a serious situation in the city of Vancouver that affects British Columbians everywhere, but particularly those in the Chinese community....

I'm just being courteous and waiting for the civil service to get into position. My first question of the Attorney-General.... Yesterday the Attorney will recall that in committee I asked....

AN HON. MEMBER: There go your answers.

[ Page 5492 ]

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that asking questions of either the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) or the now Attorney-General is like playing tennis with a machine that eats the balls. You never get a return.

HON. MR. SMITH: That's a backhanded remark.

MR. LAUK: Well, it's a better backhander than yours, I hear.

Just briefly I want to canvass.... I don't want to sensationalize the issue. I want to have a serious discussion on the record for a few minutes about the Ming kidnapping and the problem in the Chinese community in the city of Vancouver.

I have been informed, as I pointed out towards the adjournment hour yesterday, that the investigation into Chinese gangs in the city of Vancouver was almost exclusively conducted by one member of the city's police force. I will not reflect upon the competence of that one member except to say that I think he was doing an excellent job — for one member. Since the very tragic circumstances involving the Ming family, I understand that the Attorney-General is now aware of a more coordinated effort of investigation that is taking place into this affair. The threat involved in this incident indicates that it might not be an isolated incident; there is some evidence that a gang is involved and that it was a coordinated effort. There are other suggestions that this gang has connections in Hong Kong, San Francisco, Seattle, as well as Vancouver.

Without in any way endangering the efficacy of the investigation, could the Attorney-General outline whether a coordinated investigation is now underway, whether or not he is confident that that coordinated investigation includes enough members of the police forces that may be involved, and whether or not that coordinated investigation will be relentlessly pursued until the criminals involved in this case are brought to trial?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the member would know that I'm not able to say a number of the things that he'd like me to say or I'll jeopardize the investigation, but I can say that for a number of months a very concerted police task force in Vancouver has been working on nothing but this problem. That task force has focused its energies particularly on the activities of three gangs, Asian in character, which are known as the Red Eagles, the Lotus gang and the Viet Ching gang. They are gangs whose activities are not only Asian, but their victims appear to be Asian almost exclusively as well. As a result of the concerted law enforcement activities that were started last year, in November 1984 the Vancouver police successfully raided a number of youth gang hangouts, and 29 charges were laid for a variety of criminal offences. That's one visible result of the work that's gone on.

We have the case under intensive investigation. It includes the combined intelligence resources of all police forces as well as CLEU, and the RCMP are involved too. Of course, a reward of $10,000 was offered by the Vancouver Police Department, and the Chinese Benevolent Association has also established a reward fund for public donations.

I might say that the police do need the assistance of members of the community, particularly of the Chinese and Vietnamese community who are being victimized. It is terribly important that we receive information. They can do that through the Vancouver Crimestoppers number, or they can make contact anonymously. This week, as a matter of fact, all Chinese news media are being given this message, and this request is being made by the Vancouver city police. The fact that some of these activities involve extortion and intimidation of members of this community makes it most important that they feel confident to come forward with information, and understand that in coming forward we're not going to drag them into a courtroom if they don't wish; that they can come forward with impunity. But in order to remove the fear of extortion from that community....

I emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that this appears to be the work of a very limited number of individuals. We are not talking about large gangs in numbers. In fact, the total membership in the three gangs is somewhere between 100 and 150 persons; the Asian community in Vancouver is basically very law-abiding. The task of trying to break up these gangs and bring to justice the persons responsible for the tragic kidnapping and murder of the couple is of the highest priority of law enforcement in this province.

Now I've said everything that I can. I think the member will understand that.

MR. LAUK: Just two points to the Attorney on this issue. I appreciate that because of the nature of the investigation, I have to rely on the Attorney-General's assurances that it is a high priority for CLEU and the coordinated investigation. There are two points I wish to have clarified. There were allegations that there were connections between these groups the Attorney-General mentioned and groups outside of the jurisdiction, and that somehow Canadian Immigration allowed two gang members from a foreign jurisdiction to travel into the city of Vancouver, and that this information was not passed onto the law enforcement agents at all or not passed on in a timely way. Could the Attorney-General please say something about that? My understanding is that they had connections with these gangs in other cities.

The other point that I raised in my opening on the issue was: is it true that until the Ming murders there was only one person on the so-called task force to which he refers?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I can't confirm the first matter that the member raised in his most recent question. Regarding the second matter, it is not correct that there was only one person working on this before the Ming killings. There was a considerably larger number of persons working than that, and of course they participated in the raid that I mentioned, of November 1984.

1 felt this matter was of sufficient urgency that a week and a half ago in Vancouver I met with my chief law enforcement people: that is, with the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, the chief of the Vancouver city police and my own assistant deputy minister in charge of policing, which covers the people who are in charge of the task force and all other agencies, including CLEU. I told them that this matter had to have the highest policing priority. I've not just let the system work at it; I've told the officers who were in charge of those two forces, and the management of CLEU, that it is our absolutely major field priority to crack these gangs, to bring to justice the kidnappers and killers, and to stop the extortion that's going on in the community.

MR. LAUK: Because of the uniqueness of this situation and the desire that he has expressed for cooperation, would

[ Page 5493 ]

the Attorney-General consider the government donating a large sum of money from consolidated revenue toward the reward? It would be an expression, it seems to me, of solidarity with the Chinese community — that it's not just their problem. Could the government demonstrate that on behalf of the taxpayers and the citizens of British Columbia, by increasing in a substantial way the rewards available to help solve this crime?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, not at this time, because I think the reward factor has been handled well by the Vancouver police department and the Chinese Benevolent Association. I do not believe that the province on other occasions has directly involved itself in the reward side of things. That has been left to community organizations and to police boards, if they wish. But the direction of the investigation is something that we take very seriously.

MR. LAUK: Moving on to another subject, I want to ask the Attorney-General to elaborate a little on his views of the operation of the Criminal Code of Canada. We are getting a lot of confusing remarks attributed to the Attorney-General with respect to his view about the enforcement of the Criminal Code.

At one point we got the rather bizarre statement that he made in the Bahamas. That's where the Canadian Bar meets these days, I understand. Are the lawyers from central Canada checking out their numbered accounts in the Bahamas? Is that why you have to go down there? But it's good tanning weather, and I know that some discussion about the law takes place down there occasionally, between golf games and so on.

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No one from British Columbia can afford to go to the Bahamas unless they are on the public payroll, my friend.

First of all we got the reports that the Attorney-General believes that we should have firing squads. I'm not going to suggest, as one of these irreverent local newspapers suggested, that the cabinet be issued with rifles and form a circle and shoot inward, but I am going to ask the Attorney-General to elaborate a bit further on the firing-squad concept. It has all kinds of implications. I suggested earlier in this House that we could find perhaps a retired brigadier to supervise public executions by firing squad. We could supply him with a good mount, and he could have crowd-control measures and so forth. That's a possibility.

What became even more bizarre, Mr. Chairman, is the Attorney-General's suggestion that we start to cannibalize the enforcement of the Criminal Code in this country on a provincial basis. By that I take it that he means there are certain sections of the code that should be enforced or amended on a provincial jurisdiction basis. One of the great benefits of the Canadian confederation, in contrast to the American federation, is that we have a unified, consistent federal Criminal Code. You can't get one penalty in one province for the same crime committed in another.

I think that the Attorney-General, if he's serious about these suggestions, has a lot of explaining to do. No serious jurist has looked at the Canadian situation and not concluded that in terms of criminal law it's a vastly superior system to that in the United States because of the fact that only the House of Commons can amend the Criminal Code and that it applies to each and every Canadian no matter where he or she lives.

Is the Attorney-General seriously suggesting that we may eventually have the death penalty in British Columbia, no death penalty in Nova Scotia and the death penalty in Prince Edward Island, and so on? And that we may have the death penalty for premeditated murder in Prince Edward Island, but in British Columbia we may have the death penalty for voting NDP, or some other kind of offence that's not usually or hasn't been included in the capital penalty range since 1810 or so? What is the Attorney-General doing? Is he just musing? Because if he's just musing, it's a very irresponsible thing for the chief law enforcement officer of the province to do. He can chat over a scotch with the boys at the club, but for heaven's sake, when the Attorney-General starts musing in public, he's causing uncertainty and confusion with respect to the policy of this government and law enforcement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Somebody might take him seriously on it.

MR. LAUK: If the Attorney-General does not want to be taken seriously, he's also endangering the dignity and seriousness of his office. Firing squads indeed!

At one point the Attorney-General said that he thinks that the convict should have a choice of which method of execution he or she wishes to endure. This reads like a gothic novel of some kind. I can't imagine that the Attorney-General is serious. Could he set the record straight and perhaps at least suggest that this was just a wide-ranging discussion, that it is not a matter of government policy, and that he does not intend to pursue it any further?

HON. MR. SMITH: The Canadian bar met in the Barbados, which is where they decided to have their midwinter meeting with the West Indies bar, who were gathered there. They decided, I suppose, for the sake of attendance, to put on the list of topics the topic of capital punishment, and to drag me half-way across the continent to make....

MR. LAUK: Kicking and screaming, I'll bet.

HON. MR. SMITH: It was, because I was only there four days. I tell you, it's easier to go to.... You would appreciate, as a world international banking traveler, that it's more difficult to get to a place like the Barbados than it is to go to Zurich, where you're so well known.

MR. LAUK: I'm only there checking on your Swiss numbered accounts, Brian.

HON. MR. SMITH: My aim in this whole thing is to focus attention on the necessity of protecting society from a very small range of criminals who have committed murder on contract, who are repeat killers or who kill policemen and prison guards in the course of escaping. I firmly believe.... It is my personal belief, not the view of this government; this government is not in charge of criminal law enactments, as you know. It's my view, as a member of this government and as a member of this House that the only thing that can protect society, the only thing that can deter in those cases, is the death penalty. I've said before that I do not believe that the method of execution should really enter into

[ Page 5494 ]

the debate, because it is an equally serious — and odious matter to take a human life by a lethal injection as it may be to hang someone. That's the point I was making in the Barbados. Lurid and funny headlines about firing squads may give rise to discussion in this House, but I was not and am not advocating firing squads or any other particular method of execution.

With respect to the other issue of whether the criminal law should have different features and different penalties from one province to another, it already does. I hate to tell you, hon. member, that the criminal law is not totally symmetrical in its enforcement, and never has been. In fact, different ranges of penalties have often been imposed for the same offence. That has never been resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada, because the Supreme Court of Canada does not deal with sentence appeals. It could, but it chooses not to. It leaves that to the court of appeal in the province. So you have now quite a different range of sentencing.

Also, a number of sections of the Criminal Code leave discretions to the Attorney-General as to whether to do things. He may in one province do something, and do something quite differently in another. An example is in the area of prosecutions that require the consent of the Attorney-General first — defamatory libel, nudity, that sort of thing. In this province we don't prosecute for those offences anymore, and yet they do in other provinces.

The criminal law was never meant to be absolutely symmetrical and uniform. I don't advocate having different penalties for murder in this province than somewhere else. I think the best route is to have Parliament deal with the matter and change the Criminal Code nationally. If Parliament is unable to do that, unable to come to grips with that, and chooses to delegate those penalties to juries in a particular province, that would be preferable to no action on capital punishment. My thrust has been to try to persuade federal politicians to have their free vote in Parliament and deal with the capital punishment issue. If on a free vote they decide they're not going to go with capital punishment, as they have in Britain, then maybe we can put this debate to rest and get on with some of the measures we have to take in this country if we're going to deal effectively with national and international crime.

A serious initiative nationally on international crime is, I believe, long overdue. The Americans had a presidential task force which was highly successful. There have been commissions in the past in Canada, like the Cliche commission in Quebec; the present Prime Minister won his public spurs for his appearances on that commission. That commission had much to do with law enforcement policies that were carried out later in Montreal, crackdowns on organized crime. I do believe that we need a major national initiative on organized crime. British Columbia is probably further ahead than most other places because we have the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit; we have the special forces on Vancouver Island and the mainland that deal with drug matters. We are watching international criminals as they move into this province, we are aware of their movements and take action against them, but I feel we need a nationally coordinated approach to fighting organized crime.

MR. LAUK: I want to deal with capital punishment, not organized crime, and just make a very clear statement.

The people who are for capital punishment are legion from time to time in Canada. It's such a serious matter that I'm sure the Attorney-General would not concede that the matter should go to, let's say, a referendum, because we might get a differing reply depending on day of the month, and on who has just been murdered or not murdered. It's not the kind of an issue that should be left to public opinion, and sometimes the vagaries of public opinion from time to time. That's the first point I should make.

Secondly, the Attorney-General raises the issue that it's a deterrent. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. There is just a feeling people have that the ultimate threat of the death penalty is somehow a deterrent. Those people who are deterred by the death penalty, if you'd like to use a tautological argument, wouldn't commit the crime in the first place, would never think of it.

The question of capital punishment is that I don't particularly care — I'll be quite candid about it — whether the murderer forfeits his life or not. I may from time to time, depending on how I'm feeling from day to day, but if I'm particularly angry and repulsed by the actions of a cold-blooded murder.... I'm not particularly fond of the murderer, nor am I interested in protecting that person's life, as far as it goes. But there are two points that bother me.

The official taking of his life, through the state, is an indignity not to him alone; it's an indignity to all of us. It's a brutalization of society. I'm sure that when the hon. member was in law school, as I was, someone trotted out the old story about the chief of the criminal court in Britain, who was passing sentence upon an individual. I am paraphrasing: "I recognize the rather tender years of the convict, but the crime is such that has to be stamped out and deterred throughout all of England. Therefore the sentence of hanging will be carried out." The convict was ten years old, and the offence was the theft of stamps from Her Majesty's Post Office. Indeed, it was carried out. It was in 1810. We've moved quite a distance from that period. We've all read our Charles Dickens. We've all at least dabbled a bit in humanism, to the extent where we recognize that organized execution brutalizes the society.

We spoke a moment ago about the Ming murders. I want to talk to you about who these murderers may be. Do they come from a war-torn culture, where executions occur in the streets every day, where they have been conditioned to be unconcerned about the value and sacredness of human life, so that it becomes a matter of psychopathic rote, if you like, to them? I'm not saying that introducing the capital punishment penalty in Canada once again would lead to that, but the official sanctioning of the taking of human life sends a message to all of our citizens that human life is expendable, that it's not that sacred; we are therefore brutalized to that extent, and we become less civilized because of it. It is difficult, I know, for the family of the victims, and people in our community, to look on these horrible events and not passionately demand the ultimate penalty. But I'm saying we must, because eventually — and I don't think this is a utopian goal — we will live in a society where these kinds of cold-blooded murders become less and less.

We have failed to instill in people coming to our country that we live in a country that is more civilized, if you like, to that extent. If they come from a region that carries its swords and its weapons and has its killings in the streets, they should leave them at the border when they come in. Just solving the problem at the end of the matter, by saying capital punishment, is not going to do it.

[3:00]

[ Page 5495 ]

The second reason I'm opposed to capital punishment — and I think every jurist, every Attorney-general and every citizen of Canada should be opposed to it — is because of the mistake of convicting innocent people. If we watch television, of course, this doesn't happen. But as the hon. Attorney-General and I know, it happens often enough. Even if it happens once in a while, it happens often enough.

Isn't it a wonderful thing that the Attorney-General could come in here yesterday and announce that he's appointing Mr. Justice Med McFarlane to establish compensation for a man who spent — what was it — 11 years in prison for a crime which we now know he did not commit? There was a time when the crime which he was alleged to have committed was punishable by death. We convicted an innocent man. And isn't it wonderful that the Attorney-General, with the largess and graciousness of Her Majesty's government, can provide compensation to that person? It's not enough to say that it's an imperfect system, that it's got human error, and so on and so forth; we know that. It's the best we've got.

We know of instances where innocent people have been convicted of murder. There's the Marshall case in the Maritimes; the Christie case in the United Kingdom, just after the war. There were other instances in Canada where people have been convicted of murder who we know are likely innocent, but we can't prove it.

Capital punishment should not be available, and it certainly shouldn't be available to a jury. I have every confidence in a jury to make a finding of fact. In many situations I much prefer the finding of fact of a jury to that of a judge, because a judge tends to be more legalistic. But, by God, I think it's barbaric to take an opinion poll on the death penalty of a jury in each and every instance of a trial for murder. It's absolutely barbaric.

I think that it's irresponsible of the Attorney-General to raise this issue at this stage, for him to argue about a free vote in the House of Commons. How many free votes do you want? You want a free vote every once in a while until you get your way and get capital punishment.

We abolished capital punishment in this country by a number of steps, mostly through commutation in the sixties and then through a series of steps in the House of Commons. We had free votes. In spite of public opinion, legislators in the House of Commons mostly were courageous enough to turn back the tide. But there may be a day when this clamour for a free vote and yet another free vote and yet another free vote will bring back the death penalty.

At least in the United States it's part of an intellectual exercise in the supreme court. Here it's Russian roulette; it's the roulette wheel, if you like. Can we get enough people in the House to vote for capital punishment today or not? It's a distraction in a free, democratic and so-called civilized society constantly to be harping on this issue.

There is no evidence of deterrence. There is lots of evidence that mistakes can be made and innocent people executed if there is the ultimate penalty. I'm not asking the Attorney-General to respond; I would hope that he would reflect upon the position that he's taken. I would suggest in all candour that the Attorney-General has taken the position because it's fashionable and it's also part of a law-and-order image. I would hope that he doesn't really hold the views that he's expressed.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, when I first took these views in the sixties, it wasn't fashionable; indeed it was fashionable to preach commutation and the abolition of the death penalty. I have maintained my views over a period of 15 or 20 years, and they have not altered. The more cases I did in the criminal bar, or particularly in defending or prosecuting cases of brutality, cases of killing and cases of contract killing, the more I came to the opinion that the only supreme deterrence — the only possible deterrence — was the death penalty. While I recognize the sincerity of the hon. member's views on that, I would hope that he would accord me the same recognition and not think that I'm on some law-and-order kick on this at all. I am not. I happen to think that it's an issue that's important and which I, as the person in charge of law enforcement, have the duty and the responsibility to speak out on.

Mr. Chairman, I represent in my ministry a number of police officers in this province, men who work long hours, who are devoted to their duty, who often take enormous risks in the face of their duties. What am I doing to support them if I do not acknowledge that there are some persons in our society and in our institutions, persons who have killed, and who are serving life sentences, and who have only one thing on their mind: that is, to escape…? And to bring that about, they will kill again. What else can protect a police officer or a prison guard but the deterrence of the death penalty?

I can tell the hon. member that I will continue to speak out on this matter, but I will try and do so in a measured and responsible way. I might say that the element of mistake is probably the best argument that could be made against putting back the death penalty, and was obviously the argument that the Canadian bar adopted when they defeated the resolution so overwhelmingly.

I would have thought that with commutation, with the power of pardon being as it is, in borderline cases of guilt or innocence the death penalty would not be imposed in any event. But that is the argument that I think mostly appeals to lawyers: the possibility of making a mistake. There is one known case of a mistake of executing a man for murder in Canada in the 1880s, and there are others that could have occurred.

He says also that it is barbaric for the jury to make the decision. I would have thought that the one body in a position to make that kind of judgment, having heard all the facts of he case, all of the evidence both for and against the prisoner, he evidence in mitigation and everything else, and having had the opportunities they would have to hear pre-sentence reports and material.... They would probably bring in a verdict that was most compassionate — and it would he in the best place. But I do agree with the member that capital punishment ought not to be decided by referendum. I do not like that route. I think that parliamentarians should decide it, and they should decide it on the basis of conscience. It's my understanding that the new Prime Minister has promised that here will be a free vote on this matter some time during the ordinary four-year term of his administration. I'm sure that he'll honour that commitment.

MR. VEITCH: I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 5496 ]

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, even though they don't look their age, in the galleries there are 40 senior citizens from the Bonsor Recreation Centre in the great riding of Burnaby-Willingdon, and I would like the House to bid them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like to raise another issue with the Attorney-General, relating to the question of child abduction, which I know is a very difficult one for Attorneys-General and countries to come to grips with. I'm aware that Canada signed the draft convention relating to international child abduction. This is the accord that was drawn up at The Hague and signed, I think, in 1982. I'm wondering, first of all, if the minister can tell us how many countries have now signed that particular convention.

Secondly, I would like to know what's happening within Canada, among the various provinces, with respect to this question. As I understand it, as of January 18 of this year there were some 1,224 children between the ages of 10 and 15 missing in Canada. I recognize that a lot of those are runaways, and a lot of them have been abducted by strangers. But a number of them have been abducted by parents who don't have the custody awarded to him or her. This becomes a difficult problem. I have a case in my constituency in which custody was awarded to the father, and the mother took the child to Prince Edward Island. I think he has now spent about $20,000 trying to have this child returned to him. He went to the province of Prince Edward Island armed with the court order saying that he in fact had custody, but was told by the authorities in Prince Edward Island that if he attempted to take that child back to British Columbia he would be charged with kidnapping.

I understand there is a draft copy of some umbrella-type legislation that would apply across Canada. Uniform maintenance and custody act is, I think, the term used for this draft legislation that has been circulated. I wonder if the Attorney-General could comment on the status of that draft legislation, and on the position that he has taken with respect to the issue of child abduction as it applies among the various provinces in Canada.

HON. MR. SMITH: Unfortunately I can't do so at very much length at the moment. I will, and I know that we have made representations through the Uniform Law Conference to try to have a uniform piece of legislation on custody, making it possible to return........ I'm thinking particularly of the parental abduction cases, where you have a custody order in one province in favour of, say, the mother, and the father, who lives in Nova Scotia, suddenly arrives in British Columbia. He's having trouble getting access, so he just swoops the child up and disappears back to Nova Scotia. We have horrendous jurisdictional difficulties in getting the child back. It may be that it's treated as a criminal offence, which is probably not where it should be. The civil courts try to deal with it; but the Nova Scotia judge may take the position that he has no jurisdiction because the order was made in British Columbia. That has been a problem for some time.

Representations to do with that were made to the federal government in connection with amendments expected to the Divorce Act. We haven't had from the new Minister of Justice, hon. member, a detailed response as to what's going into the new Divorce Act, but I've heard him say that it will try to deal with not only matters of divorce but also matters of custody and enforcement of maintenance. So I suspect there's going to be something in there. But I would have to do a little bit of research and come back to the House if I'm to reply in more detail to your concerns. The concerns are valid ones, because I think the majority of these cases are parental abduction cases and not abduction by someone else.

[3:15]

We have the separate question, of course, which you raised, of missing children. Missing children is an awfully serious problem. We have tried to approach that problem from the standpoint of massive advertising on television and elsewhere through various community programs and to have their faces and their descriptions seen by the community as quickly as is possible, once they are identified as missing. I know that's not an adequate response to a serious question, but I would be quite delighted to bring more material to you.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to know if the minister was aware of the draft legislation that was circulated; I think it was done by John Crosbie at the time. This legislation, as I understand it, was entitled Uniform Maintenance and Custody Act. It was my information that the various Attorneys-General of Canada were to look at that legislation. It had nothing to do with the Divorce Act as such, but it was a separate piece of legislation which apparently the federal government wanted to introduce to ensure that these reciprocal agreements could take place more readily across the country.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it was the minister in the former government. It was part of the MacGuigan proposals for divorce, maintenance and custody. We have not seen the new product or what the new government is proposing to lay on the table. We have discussed the matter, only in the briefest way, at a meeting with Mr. Crosbie and the Attorneys-General in Newfoundland in November. There has been nothing in detail, that I've seen, from the new government or the new minister. Certainly we have the proposals of Mr. McGuigan, but they were ancillary to his hope to amend the Divorce Act.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring a particular issue to the attention of this House and to the Attorney-General. It is something, that I dealt with for 20 or 25 years in my previous occupation; that is, the sexual abuse of children. Many times in the past when interviewing children after reports that normally came from school counsellors, of sexually abused children.... Twenty years ago, I can assure you, the courts would not even consider it. The social welfare department would run for cover if you went there with a complaint. Senior management in police departments wouldn't listen to you. I know from the many arguments that I've had with Crown counsellors that they would not go to court with the uncorroborated evidence of a child. But over the years, I guess as a spinoff of the women's lib group, there has been a change in the attitude of the Ministry of Human Resources, the courts and the Crown prosecutors. They are now taking child abuse cases to the courts; in fact, we are getting convictions.

My main problem is a particular case on which I have contacted the Attorney-General and his ministry by letter. If he would prefer, I will not use the name for the record, but I could give some of the background and some of the deficiencies in the attitudes of the courts or the corrections systems. This person was convicted of four sex offences against juveniles — two on each case. There was a guilty plea, and there

[ Page 5497 ]

was a sentence of ten months. The person was sent to one of the local jails. Within five days from the time that he arrived in jail, he was out on a work release program.

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you are not aware of the traumatic effect on a family — a father, a stepfather, an uncle or anyone else — of a sexual offence case. To get the wheels in motion and to get that case to a police department, to Crown counsel, and to get it into court and to get a conviction literally destroys many families. What I find very strange is that.... I know that the corrections branch and the Attorney-General and all the social agencies that have been involved in this type of conviction are aware of the problems that arise. How can the Attorney-General expect a family to go through the type of traumatic problems that it develops when you say that three to five days after they get into jail on a 10-month sentence, they'll be out on a work-release program?

If we're going to make a deterrent to that type of crime or offence, I think the courts, the corrections branch and the public must look at it in a broader position. Are we going to use the courts? Maybe the courts and the jails are not the method best suited for this particular offence. But if we are going to use the court system and we are going to give sentences, how can we go to families, social workers, school counsellors — and in so many cases, in my experience, the school counsellor is the first person to identify it — and say yes, you have a case and it's a serious offence. We're going to process it. We're going to spend thousands of dollars of public money, hundreds of hours of police and social workers' investigation, and then either.... As I say, I don't know what source, be it the defence counsel or the presentence report. You're going to say yes, once we get a conviction.... As I say, for sexual offence of a juvenile you can get up to 14 years in the Criminal Code. It's not an offence that is dealt with lightly in Canadian law, in the Criminal Code. But the actual sentences, or the sentence that has been brought to my attention, the sentence that is being discussed....

A lot of groups that deal with this at a community level are quite shocked; they're not happy with the reaction of the minister's office. The appearance in this particular case was that the jail in question was overloaded and it's a lot better to have him in another facility so that he can go out and carry on his job. Maybe from a rehabilitation point of view there is a place in our correction system, but if we're going to take this swinging-door approach to the courts for a serious offence, I don't think we are going to be able to go out to the community and tell parents, social workers, school counsellors that: "Yes, we'll get a conviction, but he'll be out in three to five days."

I would like the minister to give an answer, not so much to me but to society and to families who are faced with this offence. What is the court's position and what is his ministry's position?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly not a happy situation for a family to have to go through a case of child abuse, particularly against a member of their own family. That's a terrible ordeal. Anyone who has ever had the task of prosecuting a case of incest, as I have, can tell you that they're terrible cases. But this I do know: one thing that is more terrible is to continue to condone, continue to allow that kind of situation to continue. You see, for a long time in the justice system — until very recently — our tendency was to treat these cases of sexual abuse and incest as family matters essentially, and not ones that should be dragged into the court; they were messy, they did too much trauma and might destroy the family. I don't think that policy succeeded; all that policy did was to continue to keep the subservient members of that family in a victim status. As long as they went along with it, as long as the authorities all said, when they were called out, "Well, we're not going to do anything. Try to settle your own difficulties. We're not going to bring it into court. We're not going to lay charges. We're not going to make arrests," then the abuser, the culprit knew that he could go on forever. I'll never forget the trauma of prosecuting a case of incest before a jury in the courts of Victoria — a father-daughter incest case, and it was horrible. But it was necessary that that man be prosecuted, and it was necessary that he be removed from the family. I see no other way, hon. member. But I do sympathize with you and what your constituents have told you, that it is in itself a terrible ordeal.

MR. MITCHELL: I don't want to belabour this issue, but my main concern is.... I understand the position of the Attorney-General that it has taken a long time to get it into the courts. But now we have got it into the courts. We have got courts to make a conviction. But they get a conviction of ten months and within five days they're out on a work release. Now this is the part that.... Are we going to look at a serious offence under the Criminal Code that can give up to 14 years? Are we going to say: "Yes, you could get 14 years, but you're going to have a...." You know, the sentence has gone from six months to nine months to ten months. I was told by social workers who were involved with it that they thought they had really accomplished something when they had got a ten-month sentence. But even after they got the courts to support a ten-month sentence, the person was out on the road in five days.

Somewhere in the corrections system you're going to have to look at a different approach. We had a young lad steal a handful of coins from a wishing well at the Empress Hotel. He got six months, and he served the bulk of that six months. But in what I say is a far more serious and moral-type case the system is allowing a person out in five days. Where are our priorities? Is our priority property or people? I think this is where the court system, the Attorney-General and the corrections branch have to make a difference. There's got to be a difference between what somebody does for lust and what someone does to survive for food.

[3:30]

1 just can't accept it. I know that groups dealing with children and the people dealing with abuse of women cannot accept it — and they won't accept it. People don't want to go and scream to the press, but I think the minister has to give some direction, and he has to give some thought to what we are going to do and what the people can expect to happen out in the community, and he has to have some communication with the people who are involved at all levels of the enforcement area of it.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think that I can say any more, except to.... The member's expressed it very well. I'll review that file again and see if there is anything more that I can do.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked me about the Hague convention on international child abduction, and I'm sorry that I didn't have the answer for her when she was

[ Page 5498 ]

here. But for the record, Canada is a party to the Hague convention on international child abduction, and British Columbia consented to be bound by that. There are very few countries in it as yet. The signatory countries are France, Switzerland, Canada and Portugal.

MS. BROWN: I want to talk to the Attorney-General about the fact that in about three weeks, sections 15 and 28 of the charter are going to be kicking in. We in British Columbia are still in the dark as to just what has been happening over the past three years to bring the statutes of British Columbia into line with those sections of the charter.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I know that the Attorney-General keeps saying that he's going to bring a bill down, presumably an omnibus bill or something. But I really don't think that that's good enough, and I don't think it's fair. I think that we should have this information early enough that we can peruse it, and probably even make some suggestions as to some amendments or changes. This is not an unreasonable request, because certainly I know that other provinces.... Saskatchewan, notably, had a White Paper — "Compliance of the Saskatchewan Law With the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" — which was released in September of last year, so that the women, minority groups, other ethnic groups, trade unionists and other people in Saskatchewan who were going to be affected by sections 15 and 28 had an opportunity to look at the statutes which were being reviewed and the changes that were being recommended, and give the Attorney-General there some feedback as to what they thought about what the government was going to do.

Today in the mail I received a document from Manitoba which was just released: "Effect of Section 15 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms on Manitoba Statutes." They've gone through and looked at their legislation, broken it down according to discrimination based on age, sex and race, and given an indication as to just what statutes they are looking at and the kinds of changes that they anticipate they are going to have make prior to April 17.

In British Columbia there is a volunteer group, a coalition of women in law — they call themselves the Charter of Rights Coalition of B. C. — who have been very active in this matter. They've taken the legislation and done a lot of work on it. They've prepared a review of selected British Columbia statutes which they anticipate would be affected by the charter: workers' compensation, the Human Rights Commission, pensions legislation — that kind of thing — and have prepared quite a comprehensive document. They sent the Attorney-General a copy, Mr. Chairman — if the A-G would look over his half-rim glasses — but they have not received a response. They don't know whether it got lost in the mail, whether the Attorney-General had an opportunity to read it, or what he thinks about it — if anything at all.

I think that the Attorney-General owes it to us, really, as members of the province, as people who live here and are going to be affected by the legislation, to at least indicate to us what statutes are being looked at — or have been looked at over the past three years, because this is not something that's just been sprung on the province; the province has had three years to do this. Now we know that an interministerial committee was struck to look at the legislation. We know that some work is being done. But we haven't got a clue what work is being done, what statutes are being looked at, whether anything is going to be amended, or whether the province is going to use its right to override a number of pieces of legislation, or just what it's doing. I don't think that it's fair to wait until April 17 to just drop this on us. I think that we really should have an opportunity to be a part of the decisions. We can't have that opportunity unless the minister moves very quickly over the next three weeks to at least give us some indication of what statutes he's looking at and what he's contemplating.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that two provinces have introduced legislation. I think the majority have not yet either introduced legislation or filed White Papers. Certainly two provinces, Ontario and Newfoundland, have gone marching to the polls without any charter material out as proposed amendments. But we will have an omnibus bill, which I had hoped that I would be able to introduce before we rose. I told the member that, and I can assure her that I tried to do that as a target. But we have an interministerial committee that has examined our revised statutes, and has examined them pretty thoroughly. We will be amending over 40 pieces of legislation, as really a first omnibus charter bill, and they will be on, I think, the ordinary and obvious cases where there is discrimination now — discrimination against women, discrimination against people by reason of age, discrimination on the basis of residence, and that sort of thing. We will be proposing that, and there will certainly be time to consider it in this House. There will be time after this bill is passed to consider making other amendments. As I understand the charter process, we are going to find, from time to time, that the courts are going to characterize some of our legislation as offensive or vague, and that that process will go on, and that we will make amendments as a result of court attacks. But we will also make amendments in the future, as I would see it, on the basis of submissions people make to us, convincing us that we should have had this legislation changed at the time we introduced our first omnibus bill.

What we're trying to do for April is to have a major omnibus bill removing those obvious discriminations. The report that the group you mentioned sent to us has been received and considered by the committee, along with other submissions that we have. We would welcome any submissions.

I don't think there's a huge amount of magic in the April 17 date, except that the equality sections then apply, and it's then open to anyone to attack our statutes. If we have a pending attack on a statute on a ground that we think has substance, we would be prepared to introduce further amendments. So I don't look upon our April list.... The Charter Amendment Act, 1985, is what it will be called. I don't look upon that as the end of the process at all; I look upon it really as just the beginning.

I have no difficulty in receiving submissions from any citizen of British Columbia who believes that we should amend legislation because it offends the charter, nor do we have any plans, I can tell her at this stage, to make use of our override. We're not going to propose in the charter amendment bill any overrides. Overrides would be.... We would consider those to be special cases.

I don't think we would use the override lightly, but there may be cases where we'll have to use it. Of course, I guess, the main one that comes to mind is on the issue of compulsory retirement, in which we're going to have a variety of views on

[ Page 5499 ]

both sides of this chamber, and indeed in society at large. We're going to have on that issue, I would think, a very deep-ranging debate. It's not going to be a debate that will divide on ideological lines or on party lines at all; it's going to cut across all segments of the community. So that's a matter that I can assure you is not in the charter amendments, but that we will make a separate proposal on to this chamber.

I don't feel that the sky is going to fall in if there are some matters that aren't in our first charter amendment bill, because we are prepared to amend that bill, and we are prepared to add additional ones later. I suspect that the courts would require us to do so, in any event.

MR. PASSARELL There will be a number of issues I want to discuss with the Attorney-General. After my initial discussion of high-speed chases. I want to discuss aboriginal title.

Mr. Chairman, I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood in a number of ways. But one thing that makes good movie productions, and colour in movies, is high-speed chases. We're finding more and more of that happening daily in day-to-day situations with the police and problems that the police are called in on. It's been my understanding that if a police officer in an emergency response in a vehicle has to go through a red light in an intersection, they're supposed to show some type of care before they proceed through the intersection. It's not really an absolute right for a police officer to go through, in my understanding, even though I'm not a lawyer and even though I'm taking some courses this summer which I hope the Attorney-General gives me a hand with.... It's been my understanding that one does not have an absolute right, and must show some type of care in an emergency response situation.

My concern is that more and more policemen have taken it upon themselves as an absolute right, in pursuing an individual, to go on a high-speed chase into communities, and particularly neighbourhoods. It's one thing for Clint Eastwood to do it for Hollywood films; it's another thing when we're seeing police cars going at 110 or 120 miles per hour through residential areas pursuing the bad guy.

I'd like to know if the ministry is going to tighten up on this aspect of high-speed chases, because it is a problem. You cannot control a vehicle going 120 miles an hour through a residential area as well as you can control one going 30 or 40. In a sense, you're endangering the community you're supposed to be protecting — "to serve and protect" is the motto — if you're going through a residential area in a high-speed chase. So I would like to know from the minister if there are any new regulations from his ministry to stop what seems to be an increase in high-speed chases in residential areas.

[3:45]

HON. MR. SMITH: It has been the policy in this province since the B.C. Police Commission developed guidelines in 1980 that high-speed chases are supposed to take place with a great measure of care and discretion. Not only are police officers supposed to exercise extreme caution but they are supposed to use their emergency lights and sirens when in pursuit and communicate with their superiors when possible to let them know that they are engaged in this pursuit and the route of it.

We reviewed the adequacy of those guidelines recently as a result of a case in Kamloops, the Anderson case, which was widely reported. We certainly came to the conclusion at that time that the guidelines needed a review, and that though they were adequate as far as they went, more training of drivers of emergency vehicles was needed and in order. The Justice Institute of B.C. has been conducting this kind of training. Over the past year that amount of training has increased. In our current instructions to police officers on high-speed pursuits we also have tried to emphasize that they should make a decision to break off a high-speed chase at any time when there is a greater risk to society posed by the chase.

The final thing that we've done is to introduce the hollowspike belt for use in certain parts of the province. While you can't have the hollow-spike belt in streets of the member for Vancouver Centre's riding, because you would catch his clients leaving his office when they received his bill, you can probably make fairly good use of them in some parts of your riding, hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). They are being used in the interior, and indeed, they're being used in the Colwood detachment areas.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Snow removal willing.

The hollow-spike belt is another good answer to Clint Eastwood.

MR. LAUK: Is there a differentiation between the kinds of offences for which you are pursuing these people? Very recently in the Victoria area, in the last few years, and in some instances in the city of Vancouver, young drivers, particularly, sometimes panic for a variety of almost irrational reasons. For example, there was one case in the city of Vancouver where the police put on their emergency equipment to pull the driver over — we subsequently learned that it was for a traffic violation — and the young driver, 16 or 17 years old, forgot his licence at home. The penalty, if there would be any in that situation, would be minor, but he sped away. He panicked. My understanding is that the city police pursued at high speed. What are the guidelines with respect to that and are they being enforced? That was ridiculous. An accident did result, and the boy was subsequently charged with dangerous driving, I'm instructed.

These silly things can be avoided. First of all, better driver training for the young drivers, but also the police should not be pursuing people on traffic violations at high speed, or even for what I would call summary conviction criminal offences. Your guidelines suggest a break off of high-speed chase when there's a danger to the public. My submission, and I think the submission of the hon. member for Atlin, is that these high-speed chases, particularly in city areas, are always a danger to the public. Remember that that lad driving the car, however irrationally, speeding away from the police, is a member of the public that's entitled to protection as well, even against himself.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's all a matter of judgment in a given case. All I can say is that we've tightened up our instructions and we've emphasized more the protection of the public outside the car being pursued. We would certainly prefer that the police didn't invoke the high-speed chase for a person suspected of violating the noxious weed act.

MR. PASSARELL: Are you ever serious?

On to the second issue that I want to discuss with the minister, and that's aboriginal title.

[ Page 5500 ]

Mr. Chairman, year after year in this marble mausoleum we have impassioned speeches concerning many issues which all of us, at one time or another, feel strongly we should bring to the attention of the government or of the 57 members in this House.

The issue I'd like to discuss today, as I have year after year during the A-G's estimates, is the aboriginal title or land claim issue. It's quite interesting, Mr. Chairman, that I'm discussing this issue, as other members of the New Democratic Party will do, on what is in a sense a historic day because of the recent hearing regarding Meares Island, an issue that I think all political parties are looking at very closely because there is division and there is opposition. There is an opinion by, I think, all politicians in the country, regardless of political stripe, regarding issues such as Meares Island. As a Canadian I felt very proud of our court system today, with the injunction that was brought down on behalf of the first citizens of this province and this country regarding Meares Island. With this government I know what your philosophy is when it comes to the aboriginal claim — the aboriginal title. It's been quite clear over the years in our discussions that your philosophical belief is that aboriginal title, if it ever did exist, was extinguished in 1871 when British Columbia became a province and part of Confederation. I have a different opinion on that. No court made that decision. There was no high tribunal of high commissioners of the Queen or the King at the time who made that decision. There was no treaty signed prior to that date or afterwards in this province to say that title was extinguished because British Columbia became a province in 1871. This has been a denial of something that should have been corrected now for 114 years. For 114 years we and the people who came before us have discussed it, and probably the people who will come after us will be discussing this idea and this issue and a right that should come to the first citizens of this province.

Mr. Chairman, British Columbia does not have the sole jurisdiction to solve the aboriginal title. That's something that's going to have to be worked out between the federal government and the provincial government. As much as I know that the Attorney-General, for his party, what he believes in.... It still has to be done in trilateral negotiations between the federal government, the provincial government and the native nations of British Columbia.

It's interesting to go back and look at the history of this issue — not going back the 114 years and not going back to the royal proclamation in 1763 that gave the initial rights to the native people in Canada, but when we look at prior to the mid-seventies, the federal government under Mr. Trudeau and his famous White Paper, which was a slap in the face to the native people in this country, even by its name.... He came out and would not actively participate with the native people in sitting down and having jurisdiction settlement negotiations on these important issues. Then it seemed in the mid-seventies the federal government, probably after the election of '74, had a change in heart, and started wanting to sit down and negotiate claims and settlements across this country. We look at James Bay and at what's happening in the Yukon with the Council for Yukon Indians. But that was an important milestone in the mid-seventies because then the provincial government did not want to sit down and start negotiating seriously the important issue of land claims and aboriginal title.

We had a famous court decision called the Calder decision. It went to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was never decided one way or the other: do the Nishga people have claim to the Nass Valley? Is their aboriginal title correct? Three judges voted in support of the Nishga claim, three judges voted against it and one judge ruled on a technicality. It was more or less like a hung jury. It's never been decided. That was the famous Calder decision. So to the non-lawyers like myself and many other individuals that issue has never been resolved. Regardless of what the province says at the first ministers' meeting, saying that rights were extinguished in 1871, that there are no aboriginal title claims in this province, I haven't seen that in black and white in a court decision.

I'd like to talk a little bit about one of the groups of people that I deal with politically, that I feel very proud of, and that's the Nishga people. I think all of us who are elected feel proud when we associate ourselves or deal on a day-to-day basis with a group or an organization. We feel, from the heart, how important that is to us as politicians.

Prior to 1871, before British Columbia became a province, the Nishga nation existed, as well as many other nations across this province and country. There were no treaties, no rights signed away. These were vibrant, strong nations that existed on a very local level — sometimes even expanding, as the Haida, Nishga and Tlingit people would travel across this province. It was an organized society with an organized structure that existed for centuries prior to the arrival of the new immigrants to North America. They were a peaceful society — and often much is said today about nuclear holocaust. The Nishga people were a peaceful society, they were not known as a warring nation, but if they were pushed they had battles with tribes and nations that coexisted in the same area.

The important thing about their peaceful society, which the Nishga people have continued year after year, century after century, and will continue, was seen in their dealing with English people, French people, and even to a certain extent the Russians who used to live in the panhandle of Alaska. The way the Nishga people treated the white man, offering assistance when they could....

It is and will continue to be a proud society, proud of their role in Canadian history to such an extent that when they were given the right to vote, they elected the first native to any assembly in Canada. That was Mr. Frank Calder. The Nishga people took what was denied them for a hundred years, and when they had the right to vote, they elected one of their own, and he became the first native Indian to be elected to an assembly in Canada.

[4:00]

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, he became a cabinet minister, and he served with distinction for 26 years. Very few members are ever elected in this House for 26 years.

Mr. Chairman, I'm still the youngest member of the Legislature, and can't forget that when I was born native people were not entitled to vote in this country. They weren't entitled to have some of the rights that we feel so strongly about today. The rights that we take for granted, the privileges that we take for granted.... They were denied those rights almost until 1949 or 1950, when we as a country extended to citizens of this country rights that we had taken

[ Page 5501 ]

for granted for a hundred years. We did it just three decades ago.

[Mr. Ree in the chair. ]

We still see discrimination, although not so much in Canada, not so much in British Columbia. But there is discrimination in how we as human beings treat our fellow human beings. South Africa is a perfect example of what's happening today. Rights are supposedly granted to citizens of that state, but they are denied. They're on the books. Often they're not even put on the books for residents of South Africa who were born there — they go back generation upon generation.

You know, often when I talk with the Attorney-General — and I know that in the last few years we've had some, I would feel, honest debate between each other.... It hasn't got into any you're-the-bad-guy-and-I'm-the-right-guy sort of thing or vice versa. We just talked the way we felt. I hear from people on both sides of the floor, in communities across this province: why? Why do we need a land claim? Why is there aboriginal title? I think we really have to look at that. There have been and there are injustices in society today, even in our great province of British Columbia and in our great country of Canada. Martin Luther King believed in change. He even put his life in the forefront to have something change. He believed so strongly in change that he gave his life to change injustices in society. He spoke eloquently on how he would like his four children one day to be able to go down to Georgia, into a very racist town, and be able to play on a playground with four white children. This wasn't that long ago. We're talking 1964 and 1965 — maybe even around the time of the birth of some of the Pages that work in this Legislature. But there is injustice in this society. Can we go back and change the past? It's probably easier said than done.

MRS. WALLACE: We can change the future.

MR. PASSARELL: But we can, as my hon. colleague for Cowichan-Malahat said, do things for positive change for the future. That's the way we have to look at things in this assembly. We should go and sit with our counterparts in the federal government to bring some type of change for benefit, to resolve this situation of aboriginal title. It's simply not going to go away. Some residents in this province feel that if we don't discuss it, then it's not important. It's not going to change anything. We can't keep our heads in the sand any longer on this issue.

We see reports daily in which people across this country stand up and talk about freedom of expression, even though our constitution is much different than the constitution in the United States when it comes to individual rights and privileges. We see the freedom of expression that is being brought up by some individuals across this country. One person was just tried recently and sentenced, if I'm not mistaken, to 15 months for publishing racism: Mr. Zundel. What worries me is that we're getting caught in a trap of saying: "What is freedom of expression? Does everybody have the right to say what they feel, when they feel like it, regardless of who it hurts?"

That feeling still continues in many parts of this country when it comes to the native people. We just recently heard about a hotel in the northeastern part of the province that would not rent a room to a native person. We're talking about the twentieth century; we're talking about 1985. At this hotel, individuals — native people, which this minister is responsible for — were not entitled to rent a room in a hotel. There has to be something wrong with our laws. There has to be something wrong with the way we view human beings in this province, because what we're talking about is something that is so important to all of us: rights and privileges.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, how long are you entitled to speak during…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your new rules set it out — 15 minutes.

MR. PASSARELL: If I sit down and have an intervening speaker, then I'll he able to…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may rise again.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I've been very interested in the remarks of my colleague for Atlin, and I would certainly like to hear him continue.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the House for allowing me to get back up.

What is aboriginal title to all of us? What does it mean? When we talk about aboriginal, it means first — the people who were here first, before us. Title: I buy a house; I have to register that to have title to it. There is some kind of legalese that is involved with that title. We have to remember that in British Columbia there is no title or treaty, except for two small areas, treaty 8 and treaty 11 in British Columbia. The other 99.9 percent of this province has never been in a treaty or had any kind of negotiations. Let's look at the positive aspects if we were to sit down with the first citizens of this province and have some type of honest negotiations in dealing with and settling aboriginal title. I think one of the first aspects that we have to look at is the economic aspect.

All we have to do is look across to our neighbour Alaska to see what the state of Alaska did in the last decade in resolving aboriginal title. Today there are corporations that were set up 12 and 13 years ago when the title question was settled for the first citizens of that state. Corporations were set up — if I'm not mistaken, I think there were 12 at the time — for the first citizens. Today, 11 out of the 12 corporations that were set up are profitable; they are in business, employing more and more people year after year. Those profits raised through the Crown corporations that the native people set up in the state of Alaska are used in the community. They don't have to go to the government; government doesn't have to come into the community and say: "Here, I'm DIA. I'm going to build a house and put in a water system for you." What the first citizens of the state of Alaska are doing is using the profits from their aboriginal claims in that state to benefit themselves, to put in their own homes, to employ their own people and to improve their living conditions without going to the government for welfare and social assistance.

In this province the Nishga people have brought forward two important economic proposals that would benefit not only the Nishga people and the north but the entire province.

[ Page 5502 ]

The first one is the forestry proposal that the Nishga nation has brought out, and the second one is the fisheries proposal.

To quote from the Nishga proposal on forestry, they said that the Nishga people have never relinquished their title to their land and that they want to utilize the components — the resources — in their territory, the 8,000 square miles along the Nass Valley which at one time were controlled by the Nishga people. They did their own forestry. They did their own fishing. It should again be recognized as a Nishga resource. Further on in the foreword to their publication it says that they've never surrendered their territory and/or its resources. They've never signed a treaty to say their resources were given away to someone else, or anything of this nature. Neither was it ever forced from them; there was no war, no invading army that came in and said: "Those trees are ours." Neither by force nor by treaty have the Nishgas relinquished what they, for centuries upon centuries, have owned.

The Nishga tribal council, through their forestry program and their fisheries program, believe that they, as the inhabitants of the Nass Valley, can control those resources for the best benefit of the Nishga people as well as of the province of British Columbia and the country of Canada. Because they're interested in it. It was theirs. It's not like having a company coming in that doesn't even know the area, clearcutting the trees, not replanting them, getting the profits and then moving on to another area of the province. That is their home, and will continue to be their home.

One issue on which I oppose the present government is the aspect that's often turned around as: "If we solve aboriginal title claims in this province, people who owned homes prior to the settlement will lose their homes." There is not one proposal that I have ever seen from any aboriginal nation that has said that if the settlement is solved with the federal and provincial governments, they will be displacing individuals who live in the area. The settlements are not about that. It's about time we throw that incorrect information out. Let's deal with the facts. Either you're going to solve the claims.... Either you believe that those claims do not exist because they were extinguished in 1871 when B.C. became a province, or that those rights still are in force. But don't start spreading the idea that individuals who live there — for instance, me, or any of us — are going to be displaced because of a settlement. That's not true. It's about time we dealt with the facts and not with the unfacts.

Often I receive criticism for using the words "first citizens." Individuals who are opposed to that term say: "Well, we're all first citizens. There are no second-class citizens." But that's not the case. If we look at the budget that was just approved this week, on page 192 there's a section under the Provincial Secretary's ministry that's called the "First Citizens' Fund." That fund today is over $25 million. All that this government uses is $1.8 million. That's $25 million that we could be investing....

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We are on the Attorney- General's estimates, not on the Provincial-Secretary's.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, I understand that, Mr. Chairman. You don't have to lecture me on that one.

The $25 million should be entitled to be used by the native people of this province, through the Attorney-General, for the settlement of the aboriginal title claims in this province.

Federally — and I just want to touch on this very quickly because it affects the area where I live in Atlin — the Liberal government approved the land claim settlement in the Yukon, after long negotiations with the Council for Yukon Indians. This proposal would have benefited two nations in my riding in the Atlin constituency: the Atlin band and the Kaska Dene council. Now the federal government, which the minister will be meeting with in the near future, has changed its position in regard to the Yukon settlement. One thing that I would like to see done, through the Attorney-General's ministry, is to set up a committee in this House, with two or three members — one Social Credit member, one NDP member, one chairman — to go around this province and really take an interest, to take a belief, to take a feeling of what's going on on this issue of aboriginal claim and title. We also hear that if we do something like this, it's going to cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. That's not true. We can sit down, two or three of us in a committee that the House will approve on, and we can get around this province with very little expense to the taxpayers. We're given bus passes; we're given train passes. We can travel this province.

When political parties say, "We've traveled the province," very rarely do they ever go into the far north. I haven't heard of too many committees coming into the far north. Often they neglect the far north when they say "provincial" committees. What I would like to see is this minister putting together a committee to go, as Justice Tom Berger did one time, through the Mackenzie, to hear what the people of this province really feel about land claims.

Assimilation is not the answer. That excuse has been used for year upon year: assimilation. As we said earlier, we can't change the past, but we can do something for future generations. We have to remember what Martin Luther King said about change.

I hope the hon. Attorney-General will have some reaction to my speech, because this is getting silly: year after year, standing up and just asking for something that should be a basic right to citizens in this province.

HON. MR. SMITH: I am going to respond on the subject, but I understand that the Leader of the Opposition will probably speak on it as well. I don't want to respond twice on the subject.

MR. SKELLY: I very much appreciate the statements made by the member for Atlin. Many of us on this side of the House share his feelings about the issue of aboriginal title and aboriginal claims in the province. I'm sure those feelings are shared on both sides of the House, especially in view of the fact.... My understanding may be wrong on this, but I understand that the Social Credit Party, in its 1975 convention, passed a resolution saying that the Social Credit Party would recognize aboriginal title in the province of British Columbia should they become government after the 1975 election, and that they would proceed to negotiate outstanding aboriginal claims to the province between the province, the native people and the federal government. Between their intention and implementation, something failed somewhere along the line. It seems that they have now adopted the position that if aboriginal title to the province did exist, it was extinguished at the time the terms of union were entered into between B.C. and the federal government.

[ Page 5503 ]

Since that time a number of court decisions have been made and, as the member for Atlin pointed out, a number of developments have taken place around British Columbia: the settlement of the Alaska native claims by the establishment of those native corporations that the member mentioned. Native people in this province don't necessarily consider that an appropriate means of dealing with the problem here, There also have been settlements elsewhere: Quebec, Yukon and Northwest Territories are all under discussion; the continental United States as well; and overseas, Australia has also grappled with the problem. Why should British Columbia remain an outsider on this issue?

I appreciate the fact that the member for Atlin mentioned the historic decision on Meares Island that came down today and the fact that the justices decided that an injunction will be continued to prevent logging until the arguments about aboriginal claims to that island are heard. So today is a historic day. I think you can't say that the Indians won on this issue. You can't really say it was a question of Indians versus MacMillan Bloedel or of loggers versus environmentalists. More than anything else, justice triumphed today. I'm hopeful that the government can take action while the Meares case is being discussed. And while the injunction is in effect, I hope that the government will take action, in consultation with the Indian people on the west coast of Vancouver Island, to make sure that M&B's log supplies are ensured from other areas, where the conflicts aren't so great, and that the loggers can continue to work, and that log supplies will continue until the issue of aboriginal title on Meares Island is dealt with. Of course, that is obviously going to result in the discussion of aboriginal title in the province.

I regret that the current government hasn't lived up to the resolution passed at their party convention back in 1975, and that they haven't taken the step of recognizing aboriginal title as a government, sitting down with the Indian people of this province and with the federal government and negotiating a reasonable and just solution to the aboriginal claims in this province. I think it's long overdue. Mr. Chairman, if we leave this issue up to the courts, we may see a settlement in British Columbia that none of us can accept — Indian and non-Indian alike.

This is really an issue that has to be dealt with through negotiation, and it has to be dealt with between reasonable people sitting around the table looking out for the best interests of all the people in the province — Indian and non-Indian alike — and trying to arrive at a conclusion that is acceptable to all people in the province. I don't think you can do that in court, which is an adversary system. I think that has to proceed through negotiations, and the only thing that appears to be delaying those negotiations at this point is the recognition by the government that aboriginal title exists and that we should proceed to negotiate that title and the aboriginal claims around it in a fair way.

Some people in the province would like to generate a bit of a climate of fear around this issue — and I'm not saying that that's true of anyone in this room. But there are people who like to generate a climate of fear around this issue. There's the suggestion that if aboriginal title and claims are dealt with, the economy will shut down. Nothing can be further from the truth. Indian people, the same as any other people in this province, would like to see the economy succeed. It seems that the only thing that threatens the economy in the province right now is the continuation in office of the Social Credit government. Everyone in the province of British Columbia — Indian and non-Indian alike — would like to see this economy thrive and grow. I cannot understand how some people in British Columbia would see that the resolution of aboriginal claims would in fact cause any problems at all for the economy; in fact, there would be benefits to all citizens of British Columbia, as there have been elsewhere where aboriginal claims have been settled.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations seek the floor, or is he just ignoring the rules?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Leader of the Opposition will continue on vote 11.

MR. SKELLY: In any case, Mr. Chairman, there is some concern being generated by some people around the province that dealing with the issue of aboriginal title and resolution of those claims would result in some economic dislocation in this province; in fact, I think the results would be very positive. If we arrived at a negotiated solution, the results would be very positive for the economy of British Columbia. Essentially what would happen is that we would mainstream a group in British Columbia's society that has been marginalized over the years and kept out of the economic mainstream and, if not legally discriminated against in British Columbia's society, de facto discrimination does exist.

I read an article in the Vancouver Province this morning, Mr. Chairman — and you've probably read that article as well — which outlines some of the special problems that Indian communities suffer. I'll detail some of them for you: "Forty-five percent of native deaths occur among Indian children under the age of four. The non-Indian average is less than 1 percent." Most of this, according to the article, is due to poverty, poor housing and poor nutrition. The economy of Indian communities, according to Saul Terry, who made these statements, is virtually non-existent. He also describes the effect of the education system on Indians in this province. The dropout rate of Indian students, according to Chief Saul Terry is about 80 to 85 percent. It's absolutely inexcusable. Unemployment in most Indian communities ranges around 90 percent — again, absolutely inexcusable. Suicide among Indian youth is six times higher than suicide among non-Indian youth.

Mr. Chairman, if British Columbia is not legally a racist society or does not legally discriminate against Indians, then de facto we are a racist society. If some people, because of their racial characteristics, suffer in a disproportionate way as a result of the way they are treated by our society, then in fact, if not in law, we are a racist society, and something has to be done by this Legislature to address that problem. We cannot be proud of the way this province deals with the Indian people here. The facts show that British Columbians, in the way it treats this cultural group, is a racist society. We have an obligation to upgrade the status of Indian people and to make them equal with other citizens of British Columbia — equal in terms of the health care that they have, equal in terms of the education that they enjoy, equal in terms of their ability to survive in the modem world. Those things in British Columbia today are not equal.

The way to resolve this problem is not to give more to a particular group. I think the way to deal with this problem is to recognize an ancient injustice, to redress a long-standing grievance, and that is the injustice that results when you take

[ Page 5504 ]

land from people, when you take culture from people and when you relegate them to a marginal status in society. We are now coming close to dealing with that issue in court decisions. But there's only one way we can really deal with this issue, Mr. Chairman, and that is to recognize the injustice that has been done, to recognize that there is aboriginal title in the province of British Columbia, and to proceed to negotiate a resolution of aboriginal claims.

[4:30]

As I said, I am very pleased that the Meares Island decision has come down today. I think it brings us much closer to dealing with this issue in court. I think that the statements made by the justices in the Musqueam decision have also brought us much closer to recognition of aboriginal title. I'll just read one line from the Musquearn decision of November 1: "The situation of the Indians is entirely different. Their interest in the lands is a pre-existing legal right, not created by the royal proclamation of 1763 or by section 18 (l) of the Indian Act or by any other executive order or legislative provision." Indian interest in lands precedes any act that has been passed since non-Indians took over the control of these lands. Their interest precedes any legal document that's been passed by non-Indian society in this province. In the decision of Justice Seaton today: "I am firmly of the view that the claim to Indian title cannot be rejected at this stage of the litigation. The question…."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I won't go any further in that line, but it appears — through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General — that we are coming closer and closer in these court decisions to a recognition of aboriginal title in British Columbia. Obviously the courts cannot deal with this issue. This is an issue that's going to have to be resolved by representatives of the citizens of British Columbia, representatives of the citizens of Canada and representatives of the Indian people sitting down together across the table in a reasonable way, with a view to finding a solution to this problem. And that is by recognizing that aboriginal title to the province is a political decision, and proceeding to negotiate the claims arising out of that. I would hope that the Attorney-General would make an announcement in this Legislature today that that would be his government's intention.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the position that the Leader of the Opposition espouses now and has for some time is certainly different from the position that his party espoused when they had the responsibility of office. As I recall, during the period 1972-75 they did not acknowledge the existence of aboriginal title. Indeed, the minister responsible, Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of Human Resources, in a statement that he made on the June 15, 1974, on behalf of the then government, set out a very clear description of what their position was when they were in office. It was this:

"It is the position of the government of British Columbia that any resolutions sought by the Indian people to the land question must be found with the federal government. This government is of the opinion that, under the laws of this country and particularly under the terms of the British North America Act, it is not only clear that the issue must be resolved by the federal government and not by British Columbia, but also that it would be highly improper for British Columbia to participate in these discussions."

It's interesting, you know, that they take one position when they're out of office and another position when they have the responsibility of office.

Every government in this province since 1871 has taken a consistent view on this matter, and that is the view, going back to the early governments, that there wasn't even a question of aboriginal native title, that it was in fact extinguished. In fact, it wasn't a matter that the Fathers of Confederation, who negotiated the entry of British Columbia, had to deal with or believed they had to deal with. They believed that the native issue had already been determined and that aboriginal title no longer existed. If you read the accounts of those historic meetings that took place in Ottawa in 1870 among the colonial delegates — Dr. Carrall, Hon. John Helmcken and Joseph Trutch — and the meetings they had with federal ministers, you will find that that was not a matter in dispute. Indeed, I look at Dr. Helmcken's diary as edited by Dorothy Blakey Smith, the only extant account of those negotiations, and I look at the appendix to Dr. Helmcken's diary, page 357 — and these are the only record that we have of the meetings that occurred in Ottawa, in which our Fathers of Confederation met with Canadian delegates. This is what it says about the question of Indians. "The clause about Indians...." And that is the clause that ultimately became the section of the British North America Act and the terms of the union which clearly made lands and lands reserved for Indians a matter of federal responsibility. He says this: "The clause about Indians was very fully discussed. The ministers thought our system better than theirs in some respect, but what system would be adopted remained for the future to determine. I asked about Indian wars, and Sir George Cartier said that it depended upon the severity. As a rule, the expense would have to be borne by the dominion government." There is absolutely no doubt that.... They didn't have a problem in their minds about aboriginal rights, because they didn't arise. The matter of future dealings with Indians would be the responsibility of the federal government.

In this province we've come a long way in the past ten years in our dealings with our native people — a long way. I really do appreciate the good debate that the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and I have had over the years on this matter. It has never been with any kind of rancour, difficulty or personal difference, but I guess we hold basic differing views. He firmly believes, as his constituents do, that they do retain the aboriginal title to very large portions of the watershed of the Nass River.

As I understand their claim, which is so eloquently articulated by their chief, Jimmy Gosnell, and by other spokesmen for that noble tribe that I've come to know over the past five or six years, they claim that the Nass watershed has been theirs since time immemorial and that their ownership of that land has never been extinguished. We're talking about some 5,000 square miles of land, and they certainly have never suggested — I quite agree — that they're going to dispossess others who are on there. But they tend to dispossess a fairly large chunk of cash from the treasury of Canada or the province. They certainly are never going to dispossess occupiers, I agree. But it is a major claim in terms of area, geography and dollars, and one that this province has never acknowledged and recognized. We have, as a matter of courtesy, attended meetings that have been held between the

[ Page 5505 ]

government of Canada and the Nishga tribes for the purposes of ascertaining, really, and trying to focus and clarify this claim.

Our position has been that if Ottawa wishes to acknowledge, recognize and reimburse for such a claim, that is within their purview to do so. We would prefer that it were not so, but if they wished to do that, that was their responsibility. We, on the other hand, have recognized that we have some responsibilities for native matters involving cutoff land settlements.

For many years the natives in this province had a very real grievance. Lands that were taken from their reserves without their consent following Confederation were never addressed, and no compensation was paid. As a result of negotiations starting in 1976, we've settled a number of those cutoff land claims: Penticton, Osoyoos, Westbank, Okanagan, Clinton, Squamish, Becher Bay and Chemainus, which are all combinations of either cash or cash and land. Three agreements which we have concluded in the last year and which have not yet been signed include Alexandria, Seton Lake and Sechelt.

We have recognized that we have an important responsibility there. We've also, through my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who has been involved in this field for some time and now shares responsibilities with me, had a number of other negotiations of an economic kind with natives. I think of the agreement that was arrived at with the Stuart–Trembleur Lake Indian band, in which a tree-farm licence was granted in 1982 in relation to a timber operation there. That one we're proud of and very pleased about.

Also, this government takes pride in voluntarily negotiating with the Fort Nelson Indian band an historic agreement in this province which divides the revenues that accrue from natural gas pools underlying the band's reserves in whole or in part. That agreement was signed by this government in January 1980. To date the band's share of revenues has exceeded $20 million. No doubt there will be considerably more as the price of natural gas and the prospects of that resource continues.

There are a host of other agreements of an economic nature that have been entered into. First-home grants, the First Citizens' Fund — which the member for Atlin mentioned — special rural development agreements, agreements of a forestry nature, agreements also for.... Bums Lake Native Development Corporation funding in 1979 was another one which members of this House will be familiar with. I could go on.

All I'm trying to say is that although we don't agree with the argument of the first nations, and with the member for Atlin and the present position of the Leader of the Opposition's party on aboriginal title, we do agree that we have a responsibility to try to improve the lot of, and deal with the aspirations of, our native people, and to do so in good faith.

We go to the first ministers' conference next week — the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Premier and I - and the issues that are before us primarily are the issues of self-government and, to a lesser extent, equality rights for women. We support a further clarification, if desired, in the constitution dealing with equality rights for women, We certainly support a political advance on the question of self-government, but we are not and have not been in favour of constitutionalizing at this stage a right of self-government.

The government of Canada has taken the position over the past year, through two administrations, that they would support a constitutionalizing of self-government, and then what self-government meant would be worked out by negotiation in the future. We have felt that that is a cart-before-the-horse proposition, and that the only way to deal with an issue like self-government is to get out and negotiate on a tripartite basis band by band, and to find out whether what self-government is going to mean in one part of the country would be different in another. Where an arrangement is made in relation to local self-government and the assumption of authority by a band to have more control over its own governance in the field of social services and otherwise.... Where that is proven to work, and where that arrangement is an appropriate one and does work, then at that stage we could see no reason why we wouldn't consider putting those arrangements in the form of an agreement or treaty.

That is the approach, that pragmatic approach taken fairly and up front, because we have not fooled them in any of our negotiations by taking a different position. We are not enshriners in constitutional stone, and we are not believers in negotiating aboriginal title, but apart from those things which they may find defective in our point of view, we are prepared to negotiate with them in good faith on a range of subjects, including self-government.

[4:45]

MR. SKELLY: Well, I thank the minister for his explanation. It is interesting that he quotes a former New Democratic Party Minister of Human Resources selectively. We did have some difficulty, of course, with the federal government at the time we were in office, but when the issue of cutoff land claims was brought up by the NDP government and the NDP government indicated its willingness to deal with the cutoff lands under the McKenna-McBride agreements between the provincial and federal governments, Mr. Levi indicated at that time that he was aware that he was opening discussions on the general land claims to the province, and that dealing with the McKenna-McBride cutoff lands was only the first step. He recognized that and recognized it publicly.

It's interesting that the minister goes back and quotes the Helmcken diaries to justify his position on aboriginal title to the province. It's also interesting that the negotiations between the national government and the provincial government on the issue of Indian lands did not include the Indians, the original owners of the lands.

It was very easy for Mr. Helmcken to have his view and for the British Columbia authorities to have their view and for the national authorities to have their view. The authorities that weren't consulted were, of course, the original owners of the land. All of this took place without their consent and without their agreement. That's the problem that we've been dealing with for more than a century now and the problem that this government refuses to deal with at this late date.

There was no comment from the minister on the justification for the settlements in Alaska, the continental United States and other areas around the world — no justification at all. Why is British Columbia an isolated area in terms of the way it treats its aboriginal people?

I've also read some federal government reports on these issues, the annual reports of the superintendent-general of Indian affairs, where it appeared to be the federal government position at that time, back in the late 1890s, that their goal or their objective was to eliminate Indians as a separate

[ Page 5506 ]

people, and that was the reason why they established the education systems that they established. That's the reason why they went after the practice of potlatching among native communities in British Columbia. When you read the federal government's position and the reports of their superintendent-general of Indian matters, their objective was to extinguish native people as a separate cultural group. So really, when you hark back to the Helmcken diaries and the reports of the Fathers of Confederation, I think you have to look at their particular bias, and also at the fact that Indians weren't represented in those discussions at all.

We congratulate the government for the granting of a treefarm licence to Tanizul Timber and to the Stuart-Trembleur band. We feel that's resulted in good solid economic development and job creation efforts in that area. I think the minister's timing was a bit wrong, or maybe he was a little confused about the timing of the establishment of the Bums Lake Native Development Corporation; some of those events may have happened prior to 1975, if he checks his history. The same is true of the allowance of homeowner grants on Indian reserves. The New Democratic Party government between 1972 and 1975 not only allowed homeowner grants to be made on reserves, but made that legislation retroactive, because that's one form of grant that had discriminated against Indians and Indian on-reserve housing.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sure the minister would support my private bill presented in 1976 which had to do with an impartial and independent tribunal to deal with certain matters of concern to members of the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that the government will not move from the position that there is no aboriginal title to the province of British Columbia. I suspect that within the next little while the courts are going to make that decision for us, and we will be forced to negotiate aboriginal claims in the province. I think that's extremely unfortunate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I feel that I should take my place in this discussion with the Hon. Attorney-General. As you may well know, Mr. Chairman, just over 10 percent of the people in my riding are native Indian. I've gone to bat for them on many occasions on quite a large number of matters. I want to take this opportunity, because I'm getting up on a different matter, to say that I fully support the position taken by our leader and the member for Atlin regarding aboriginal land title, which has been a most serious issue in my riding over many years. It's a matter that should be resolved just as soon as possible, and I think the government of British Columbia could — and should — immediately take the initiative in this regard. In passing, because I was here between 1972 and 1975 as a member of this Legislature, I want to tell the Attorney-General — through you, Mr. Chairman — that I'm quite proud of the advances our government made on behalf of the native Indian people of the province over that period, in spite of very difficult problems at that time with the federal government.

I want to discuss with the minister very briefly a topic that I think he would know something about. The Sechelt Indian band, after many years of lobbying and negotiating with the federal government, finally got the federal government to agree to draft legislation for self-government for that band. In fact, the band councillors were informed at one point during the course of negotiating on this matter that the legislation would probably be presented to the House of Commons sometime in February. This did not occur, and I know the reasons why it did not occur. I'm up to date on that particular situation. I might add here that members of the elected band council from the Sechelt Indian band did in fact meet with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) here in Victoria, along with Mr. Exell, who is responsible....

We've lost the Attorney-General. I'm asking him a direct question. He'll be back? Okay. I know Mr. Exell is listening and is very familiar with this matter, so I will carry on. I understand. It happens to the best of us.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, some elected members of the band council did in fact meet because this proposed legislation has direct impact on the policies and, when the legislation passes, will have direct implications with respect to the provincial government of this province.

So what I am asking for at this time is — well, two things really. One is this. We now have the opportunity, I would guess, because the federal legislation is being held up in Ottawa — and is being supported by our caucus in Ottawa, I might add — and held up for some reason that I'm not too sure about.... I've been given two different answers on this. But anyway, there is a first ministers' conference taking place. The Attorney-General will then have the opportunity to discuss — either with the Prime Minister or with Mr. David Crombie, who is responsible for this legislation to the government of Canada — presenting that legislation, to the federal House as soon as possible. I would hope that the Attorney-General will make that effort.

By the way, I do appreciate the efforts that have been made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations in this regard. I know that he has made an effort and that the council members of the Sechelt Indian band were unable to meet with the Attorney-General when they were here on that particular visit, through no fault of the Attorney-General.

But just the same, time is passing, and the Sechelt band has a great deal at stake in this particular matter. This legislation will be landmark legislation when it passes the federal House. The second part of my request, to bring it to the attention of the minister and to this House, is that if and when that legislation passes — but I believe that it will pass the federal House — it will be extremely necessary for the council members of that particular band to meet as soon as possible with the Attorney-General, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, Mr. Exell and the other people involved to resolve a host of matters and problems, which I won't get into in this particular debate, that will affect the province almost immediately the legislation is passed.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I might add that I am informed quite reliably that all political parties in Ottawa have agreed, when this legislation is presented to the federal House in Ottawa, to expedite its passage. Once again — now that the Attorney-General has returned — I would ask the Attorney-General.... We're dealing with the self-government legislation for the Sechelt Indian band. Legislation has been drafted, and it is now in the hands of the federal Parliament and, specifically, of David Crombie, the federal Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My request, to repeat — I hate to repeat, but I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman — is to ask the Attorney-General to discuss expediting the passage of that legislation through the federal House with Mr.

[ Page 5507 ]

David Crombie at the first ministers' conference next week, and secondly, when that legislation has been passed, to meet as soon as possible with the Sechelt Indian band to resolve the many problems that will become self-evident as it impacts on provincial legislation.

HON. MR. SMITH: My information on that matter is that it is plugged somewhere in the Indian Affairs bureaucracy and has not got out of it — that they're having second thoughts or reconsidering it or something, but that it hasn't proceeded. So all I can agree to do is to raise the matter with Mr. Crombie when I'm down there next week, to find out where it is. I'll do that.

[5:00]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just one word on that, The latest word I have on that particular.... There were a few sections that Mr. Crombie and his people in the minister's office were unhappy with. This is what I've been told quite recently. The legislation was sent back for re-examination, redrafting and consultation on a very few sections of that proposed legislation. But I'm hoping and I would like to think that this is not a stall by the federal government to have the legislation set aside, because the band, in a meeting they had with the minister on their visit to Ottawa in January of this year, were promised that that legislation would be presented to the federal House in February of this year. That's over a month ago, and the legislation is not before the federal House. So I'm merely asking, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Attorney-General discuss with Mr. Crombie expediting that legislation through the federal House.

MR. LAUK: The question of legal aid. Contrary to press reports — I think that the Attorney-General has indicated there is some sort of agreement with the Legal Services Society — there is no agreement about the adequacy of government funding levels with respect to legal aid. I mentioned earlier in committee on these estimates that the legal aid tariff — that is, the amount paid to criminal lawyers for taking defence cases on legal aid — is one-half of the amount received in Ontario. The amounts received in Ontario are described by the Upper Canada Law Society as still inadequate to encourage lawyers to provide the amount of time necessary to prepare defences in these cases. British Columbia is far behind most of Canada, it seems to me, when at one time, under the NDP administration, we were far ahead.

What is the question of legal aid? It seems to me that the public does not spend too much time thinking about legal aid except when it happens to one of them or a member of their family or something. The question of legal aid is very important. The Attorney-General complains about $115 million being expended on prisons, yet almost half of the prison population are made up of native Indians, who in many cases, through my own experience and through reported cases, would not have been convicted of some of these offences nor sentenced to jail had they had adequate legal representation. We all know, those of us who have experience in criminal defence and prosecution work, that the native Indian population would not comprise such a disproportionate percentage of the prison population had they had adequate legal representation. The cutbacks that have occurred have cut back and affected these people.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The present service levels can be maintained with the funding thought to be forthcoming: about $13.5 million from the province, $3 million from the Law Foundation and about half a million from other sources. The total cost for legal aid for our population is $17 million.

The Attorney-General appointed a task force, and we assumed that the Attorney-General would act on this task force. They could have asked me; I had experience with this minister when he was Minister of Education, and I know he doesn't act on anything. He had what they called education forums, and all kinds of wonderful representations were made to these forums, and the minister kept on answering us in the House that he was collating these, and he produced a great wonderful publication that's a historical collectors' item right now — and absolutely nothing in it has been implemented. Seldom does this minister fulfill what he promises.

Now, he appointed a task force to look at the legal services situation, represented by the A-G currently as an interest group; I think it would be fair to so characterize his references to that task force. He calls it an interest group. It is in fact the minister's hand-picked task force. If the minister won't act on what his own hand-picked team has advised, then we've got a real problem again. This minister refuses to act upon the recommendations given to him by his own task force. I'm suggesting to the Attorney-General that he must act on these recommendations. It is one thing to have on paper an excellent administration of justice, an excellent system of justice, in the province, but it's another thing to make sure that people who are charged with offences or facing other problems, such as in family law, are adequately represented by legal counsel.

The federal government, through its Young Offenders Act, has forced the Attorney-General to meet the obligation and necessity for young offenders. He still complained bitterly in the press about that. This Attorney-General has a very feudal attitude towards the law. I fully expect that one day, in a pique, he will come in and introduce legislation eliminating police forces, saying that it's cheaper to have hue and cry in the villages. I'm wondering whether, he'll bring back trial by ordeal. He's musing about it now; you see, Mr. Chairman, I shouldn't have raised it.

But I'll tell you something in all seriousness: we cannot hold our heads up and say that we've got an adequate system of justice in this province when people are going undefended all the time.

There have been many recommendations. The government has largely ignored the task force recommendations, because the anticipated budget does not allow for additional family law coverage, a number one priority of the task force; enhanced services to native people, the number two priority of the task force; flexible eligibility criteria; or substantial fee increases for lawyers undertaking the work. The public should not get the impression that lawyers are making huge amounts of money practising legal aid. There are some lawyers who do some legal aid and some who do a lot more. The tariff for legal aid, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, is much below what it should be with the work and the preparation involved in these defences.

We cannot afford to chisel away at the legal aid system, which at one time was one of the best in Canada and is now one of the worst. It's underfunded. It is not meeting the needs. It's meeting a bare subsistence level of representation in the courts. There is a responsibility in the Law Society to

[ Page 5508 ]

provide a better system of providing more experienced counsel on more serious offences. It should be a requirement for senior barristers to take legal aid work.

We cannot, though, allow this Dickensian attitude to prevail in the delivery of legal aid in our system of justice. The Attorney-General's attitude, as I say, is virtually nineteenth century. He muses occasionally that wasn't it nice in the old days when the country lawyer or the barrister would condescend to take on a case pro bono, and we'll throw bouquets to this lawyer and so on. These are wonderful sentiments, but they don't help these people who are facing complicated charges and who may well be innocent of them. There are many cases where native Indians are pleading guilty when they don't understand the nature of the charges and they're not adequately explained to them.

The system has been eroded, and it has been more eroded under this Attorney-General's short term of office so far. He's got a lot to answer for in the area of legal aid. As you know, he threatened a bill to bludgeon the delivery of legal aid, and he has withdrawn it. I suppose that's the tactic of the Social Credit government in all cases. They threaten to take away so much from the people affected, and then when they pull back a little from that, we're to consider ourselves lucky. This Attorney-General will be known in history not for any single wonderful innovation in the administration of justice but for his supervision of the erosion of the legal aid system in this province.

The task force submissions to the Attorney-General are being ignored. They're not even seriously considered, and that is a pity. The Attorney-General may appoint another task force, but I suggest he's going to have a hard time finding expertise to sit on that task force which will deliver the kind of recommendations that he wants. He has to go into the past and resurrect somebody from the nineteenth century to give him the recommendations that I think he's looking for.

The other question I want to raise with respect to legal aid is that under the new young offenders legislation, the estimated cost will be $3 million additional, I think. There is no provision like that in the current estimates. The allocation has gone from $15.5 million — that includes a $3.5 million special warrant in 1985-86 — to $13.5 million for 1985-86, a reduction in government contribution to legal aid of 13 percent. I think I'm reading the figures correctly.

The attitude of the Attorney-General, which is the overall philosophical attitude of the government, is that British Columbia is a class society. There are two classes of people: the rich and the poor. The poor are the occupants of our penal institutions. The poor go unrepresented. The poor are charged with offences that shouldn't hold up in court any day of the week, and if they had any legal representation at all they wouldn't be proceeded with.

On the question of police costs, I have communicated with the city of Vancouver, which is the major non-RCMP policing area. I have from time to time brought to the attention of the government the need to try to compensate municipal organizations with respect to its law enforcement, particularly in the city of Vancouver, which is downtown British Columbia. It serves as the province's major city, and its police costs are expensive. Because of the introduction of Expo 86 into the city, it's reckoned by the city that it will be an additional $1.466 million for the hiring of additional police, your police for additional duties, toward the end of the fiscal year to cope with the Expo situation. These figures have been reviewed by the police board and the chief of police, as well as the finance committee and the officials at city hall.

There's an example, Mr. Chairman, of the additional cost, and I would ask whether or not the Attorney-General is going to consider an additional amount, by way of grant to the city of Vancouver, for these additional policing costs. It's already a very heavy burden on the city of Vancouver to handle the extra servicing of Expo 86. One of the major costs of extra servicing is this $1.5 million in additional police costs on an already $60 million budget in the city of Vancouver for police services. That's a very heavy burden. That's almost one-third of the city budget, with respect to providing services to the city of Vancouver. We in the city of Vancouver, as homeowners, are paying very high property taxes as it is. I would ask the Attorney-General to respond to those two questions on legal aid and police costs.

HON. MR. SMITH: On the last matter, on Expo policing, we have been represented on the committee that has been meeting on Expo policing matters, consisting of Expo, the city and our ministry. My assistant deputy has been part of that committee. Also Expo itself has a major security force headed up, I might add, by the former chief of police of the municipality of the corporation of Oak Bay.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: The person was chosen for experience in high-pressure policing.

In any event, we're aware of the tremendous additional effort that is going to have to be made during Expo. I think the city is aware, as well, that Expo does place some burdens, as well as the benefits that will flow into the city. All I can say is that we're cooperating, and that no arrangement has been made.

MR. LAUK: There's no additional tax revenue from Expo to the Vancouver....

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, there will be a great deal of additional tax revenue — hotel tax revenue and....

MR. LAUK: There's no hotel tax revenue to the city of Vancouver.

HON. MR. SMITH: The revenue that is coming in to the city of Vancouver to businesses and merchants will be....

MR. LAUK: There's no income tax payable to the city of Vancouver.

[5:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm quite aware of that. I'm saying that additional revenues to Vancouver businesses will be immeasurably increased.

The other matter is legal aid, Mr. Chairman. The member is really disappointed that he wasn't able to do a thorough critical job on me on the subject of legal aid. He was disappointed because of an arrangement that we entered into in February with the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society and the Legal Services Society of British Columbia, an arrangement which acknowledged that we didn't have a perfect funding system of legal aid, certainly neither from the standpoint of the total amount of money that we grant to legal

[ Page 5509 ]

aid nor from the standpoint of fees. Nevertheless, the Legal Services Society would operate within the budget limitations of last year and be able to do so for the next several years, and would be able to, in addition to that, move into the very area that was recommended by the task force, which is the area of family law, and have new initiatives in the field of family law, and have those initiatives partially on a pro bono basis.

I can tell the member that he may consider me nineteenth century, and I thank him for the flattery of updating me by 100 years, but he's about sixteenth century if he believes that there are not people in the bar who are very anxious to retain a pro bono contribution in the field of legal aid, not the least of whom, I might add, and in the forefront of this, is the Hon. Mr. Justice Bouck, who has done a good deal of work in this area.

You see, I don't believe that the answer to legal aid is simply fattening the tariff for the lawyers. I believe....

MR. LAUK: Fattening? That's an insult.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it may be an insult, but....

MR. LAUK: It's one-half of the Ontario tariff, and the cost of running a law practice in the city of Vancouver is about double that in Toronto.

HON. MR. SMITH: But, you see, you make the assumption, as do some of your colleagues in the bar in Vancouver, that legal aid was supposed to provide a livelihood. It was never supposed to do that.

There were a number of task force recommendations, some of which we accepted and some we rejected. I liked the recommendation of rationing abuses in the system and not providing legal aid in every criminal case where you're dealing with someone who has been back before the courts three, four or five times. I'm sure the member opposite will tell me that that's the very person that needs legal aid, because the presumption of innocence is somehow different the fifth time. But the public doesn't understand and doesn't appreciate why legal aid is given to the same person time and time again. Abuses in the system have got to be curbed.

MR. LAUK: He may well have been charged wrongly five times in a row.

HON. MR. SMITH: He may have. But maybe one of those times he was charged correctly, hence he was convicted.

The other area in which the task force recommended a curtailment of legal aid was in the area of drinking and driving. They divided on that in their recommendation. I believe that we shouldn't be providing legal aid in drinking-and-driving cases, unless imprisonment is sought. I understand that in the settlement that we made this year in legal aid my points of view are going to be taken into account by the Legal Services Society. But they're going to administer it as best they can within the funds they received.

MR. LAUK: One-third of what they need.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, maybe, but we're all operating with less than we need. If we had budgeting on the basis of need we could just quadruple or triple the provincial budget. But I can tell you that quite apart from being remembered as the person who downgraded legal aid, as you say, I will be remembered as the minister who saved legal aid.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I will, because I had a committee take a look at it. They examined it, shook it up somewhat and managed to provide the same funding as before, without a cutback. They managed to try and get the system to set some priorities and also managed to make it more accountable. The legal aid system has fared reasonably well. I do not dispute what the member says — that in a perfect situation where we had more funds it would be indeed appropriate to increase that tariff — but even if it was increased, hon. member, it's not a tariff that a barrister of your note would practice under for the purpose of living off, because you get such larger fees elsewhere when you are going out into the marketplace. You do it because of your sense of obligation to your profession. You do it also from the standpoint of experience.

MR. LAUK: I've done it, and NDP lawyers do it. I haven't seen a Socred lawyer do a pro bono case in police court in 20 years.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, that is about the most ridiculously partisan comment, Mr. Chairman, that I've heard in this chamber in many a year.

MR. LAUK: You think all partisan comments are ridiculous.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't. I like lots of partisan comments. But it's just like my saying that only NDP lawyers live off the avails of legal aid. It's just a crazy and irresponsible statement. Shame on that member. He knows in his heart of hearts that regardless of party, many members of the bar assume a heavy obligation doing legal aid work or work for very low fees. The problem is that a lot of other members of the bar do nothing in that regard and assume no responsibility. It's those members of the bar we would like participating in a pro bono system, doing their share of work in the family law area, putting in some hours, because the burden has been a burden assumed by the few and not by the many. I would like to see all the lawyers sharing that burden.

MR. LAUK: Well, you know, it's all very nice to make those comments. The Attorney-General has admitted that he is abandoning his solemn and sacred duty as the chief law officer of the province, and he's abandoning it to public opinion. Yes, I know about public opinion. I know that the public seems rather concerned about so-called repeat offenders receiving legal aid. But it's his responsibility to protect the conventions and the traditions of the administration of justice, without concern for public opinion. That's the first thing he has to do.

His comment that the bar, the legal profession, must continually subsidize the administration of justice is a further erosion of the system. We brought in legal aid in the first place to stop this requirement that the legal profession subsidize the system by donating its own time and the expense of heavy law office overheads to defend people, either charged pro bono or on a very small legal aid tariff. That subsidy is

[ Page 5510 ]

becoming larger and larger. There are some lawyers doing legal aid who do not have parity with bus drivers, teachers or a variety of other non-professional people.

HON. MR. SMITH: Should they be paid that much?

MR. LAUK: A whole lot of people want parity with those two groups.

The point that I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is: don't try to suggest that there are a whole bunch of fat-cat lawyers making huge amounts of money; that they can take 50 percent of their time, paying their staff to do work that should be paid for by the public purse. It's the solemn duty of the public purse and the government of this province to provide a fair and even-handed system of justice. You're not doing it; you're eroding it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Mackenzie wanted to speak, but he has been unavoidably detained, so I'm going to say a few words. Oh, he's back. But anyway, I'm on my feet now.

I am curious about the compulsory maintenance program — and legal aid. First of all, I'm wondering if it's working, if the Richmond pilot is working. Can the minister tell us something about it? How effective is it? Is it working and is it effective? Why was the decision made to just extend it to Vancouver? Why not cover the whole province? I know that in other provinces a similar kind of program is run for anyone who wants to take advantage of it. But here we've done the Richmond pilot. We've been told it's a success, but then it's only going to be tried out in Vancouver. So what kind of statistics can you give me? How many people are using it? How much money is being collected? Exactly what's happening to it? What plans do you have for the future, in terms of expanding it?

HON. MR. SMITH: Instead of going provincewide before we were ready, we started on an area basis, where we had a good deal of density and also had facilities to monitor it. We fully intend to extend it eventually to all other parts of the province. We have to test the procedures to make sure that they're working properly and that the program is going to be effective. We've only been at it a short time. I don't have any figures here today that could shed very much light on the amount of money we're collecting — the speed of it and the cost of doing so. I think probably at the end of six months we'll have a better idea. There's no doubt that we intend to go further. It's just that we started in that area, and we will be spreading it across the province.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister would make an undertaking to share those statistics with me, because I really would like to find out how the program is working.

HON. MR. SMITH: Most certainly.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll only be a few minutes. I should never say that. I've been told never to say that, because it draws a round of applause every time.

Mr. Chairman, being a member representing a rural riding.... I know the minister's mind is basically on the larger urban centres in terms of legal aid — I just want to get back to this for a moment. When cutbacks did take place in legal aid throughout the province, it seemed that some of the smaller communities were harder hit on a percentage basis than the larger urban areas where most of the legal people live. I want to say that the people who staff legal aid offices in our smaller communities are working very hard, doing an outstanding job under very difficult circumstances. I might add as well that it's been my experience that the legal counsel who live in these small communities on the whole do what they can to assist and work with legal aid offices, councils, community law offices and so on.

My reason for getting up is that these offices in the smaller communities — and I have discussed this often with the people who work in these offices and are directors in these offices — simply don't have the funding or the, staff to do the job correctly. As a result, people who should perhaps not be going to jail at all or who should be spending shorter terms in jail.... They don't have the staff and the people in those offices to provide proper and appropriate counsel right through the whole case, whatever the case may be. People are serving longer terms in jail as a result, particularly the poor people, and this is costing the province money.

So you're saving a few pennies over here by cutting back on financing and, as a result, staff in local community law offices, legal aid offices.... You're putting out the money over here, having these people cost.... What does it cost to keep a prisoner in jail for one day, Gary? Whatever it costs, it's a very significant amount to maintain a prisoner every day in jail, perhaps when they should not necessarily be there.

MR. LAUK: About $400.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My gosh! I would have guessed less than that, but it's $400 a day, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre tells me.

So my point is simply this, Mr. Chairman: could the minister review once again, and perhaps accept, some of the recommendations in a report that he has in his possession, of course, and see that some of the people in the smaller rural communities have appropriate legal aid?

[5:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: I think the $400 figure was the member for Vancouver Centre's hourly tariff that he charges; $60, I'm told, is approximately the amount that it costs to keep a prisoner for a day.

The community law offices in some cases have been shut; that's true in some communities. Those decisions were made by the Legal Services Society. Quite often, when that has occurred, the service has been contracted out to someone in private practice in the community, and they have tried to do that without affecting the service as such. But I guess people like the drop-in office type of atmosphere. There may be some problem in getting used to that.

I know that in the riding that the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) represents, for instance, legal aid in the past year or so has been well-run out of a private law office. I've been in that law office and seen legal aid clients of all kinds in there mixing with the sort of clients that the member for Vancouver Centre is able to attract at his modest tariff, and it works very well.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to review for a minute the Shoal Island case: report No. 7 to the Legislature from the

[ Page 5511 ]

ombudsman. The ombudsman, for a couple of years, reviewed the question of adequacy of scaling to determine whether contractors and the Crown were in fact getting their just returns from their work and for the value of public timber. The ombudsman came to the conclusion that indeed the contractors were not, and the Crown was not; and came to the conclusion that in the time period he looked at there were something like $10 million in losses both to the Crown and to the contractors who had been involved in logging for B.C. Forest Products.

This went on, as I said, for a couple of years: letters to the Deputy Minister of Forests, letters to the Minister of Forests, dealing with both the Attorney-General's department and the Ministry of Forests, Finally, because there was nothing but stonewalling from the bureaucracy, from the Ministry of Forests, the ombudsman came to the conclusion that this matter should be submitted to cabinet, and subsequently came to the conclusion, again with no action, that it should be submitted to the Legislature. So on January 11 last year the ombudsman made the decision to send his report to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. On February 13 he advised that he was going to submit his report to the Legislature. Then on February 15 the ombudsman got a letter from the Deputy Attorney-General: "…to examine the matter, to determine whether any criminal conduct might be present, " to quote from that letter. At the time the Attorney-General said that the decision subsequently made.... Because there was a clear lack of evidence and flimsy comments from this ministry, he made the decision that he should proceed and provide his report to the Legislature and to the public of British Columbia.

What did the Attorney-General say when that report was submitted to the Legislature? He charged the ombudsman with poor judgment and poor and inappropriate conduct and said that the ombudsman was highly irresponsible. The ombudsman had been carrying on his work on this question for years, had been stonewalled for month after month by the people in the Ministry of Forests, by assistants to the Premier and various political flacks in ministerial offices. Then we get this kind of comment from the Attorney-General. And what happened in terms of checking out so-called "possible criminal conduct"? They didn't do anything. Finally the police were sent around to Mr. Mahood's front lawn — one of the people who made the complaint to the ombudsman in the first place — and they disappeared like the morning dew. There was no criminal investigation. There was no suggestion through any of the ombudsman's work that there was any criminal conduct or misconduct whatsoever. His report is very clear in that regard.

I just wonder if, at this stage, the Attorney-General has come to the conclusion that he should reconsider his statements about the ombudsman and his work and his report to the Legislature, since clearly the Attorney-General was involved in the traditional smokescreen that we've had from other Attorneys-General in this province on similar matters.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member wasn't here when all this arose, and we dealt with this at considerable length. I might tell you that I don't make it a practice to criticize the ombudsman. This is the only time I've ever done so, and I did so in this chamber. I filed documents in support of what I was doing, and I did so for one reason only, and that was that he, having been told and having been warned by my deputy that a criminal investigation was already underway, decided that he was above that kind of a caution and that he was going to make his report anyway. When he made that decision to make his report in the face of being warned of a criminal investigation, he put himself in a different position than any other citizens in this province would. If there is a criminal investigation going on and I've got to comment on something in this Legislature, I have to be mum about it. So do you. So do the rest of us. Why is an ombudsman on some kind of high and mighty plain that takes him out of the entire system of justice? You tell me.

I don't go around criticizing him. He's got a tough job to do. He does it as he sees fit. I may not agree with how he does it. The only time, hon. member, that I criticized him — and I'll do so again, or anyone else — was when there was a criminal investigation that was already underway. It started on January 26, and he was told that, and he bashed ahead. That's why I criticized him, and I'll do it tomorrow.

MR. WILLIAMS: Aw, come on, now! These reports were hanging around for years; the material was around for years; the studies of the ombudsman were going on for years. The stonewalling, unfortunately, went on for years as well, Any reasonable person that had gone through this material, as the ombudsman did, would have come to the same conclusion. He faced — and continues to face — stonewalling by the ministers of this administration, by this Attorney-General, and countless others. At every stage the other ministers had the opportunity to step in and do something; now the matter is still carrying on. There's a middle-level Forest Service bureaucrat still wrestling with this question, and it's clear to me, in looking at some of the memoranda that I've seen, that again the Attorney-General and his staff are involved in a process of really doubting the work of people that have come to somewhat different conclusions than they have.

I would say that while the Attorney-General may well have held those opinions at the time, surely at this stage an apology is due to the ombudsman. There's never been any suggestion at any stage in terms of criminal activity here — that really doesn't hold up. The statements the Attorney-General made with respect to this impressive person who is the ombudsman really.... He deserves an apology at this point.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I'll lay it out again. No steps were taken to try to derail the ombudsman, his investigation or the publication of his report, All that was done with the ombudsman was that he was cautioned by my deputy that there was a criminal investigation underway and it would therefore not be appropriate for the government to comment on his report. He could have waited until that criminal investigation was over. The reason there was a criminal investigation.... It may be now that we're terribly wise and that we can say that that criminal investigation didn't turn anything up. It didn't. But the reason there is a criminal investigation is that the man who was the reason why the ombudsman did his whole investigation — Mr. Mahood — wrote to the Deputy Minister of Finance on the January 11, 1984, and said: "I cannot express a view on the facts, but if the allegation is correct it would suggest there has been collusion to defraud."

The Deputy Minister of Finance didn't exactly overreact to that, but he sent it along to the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, criminal justice, on January 19. He said: "Would you please review Mr. Mahood's letter and provide advice to Mr. Apsey and myself as to the appropriate course of action

[ Page 5512 ]

with respect to the allegations of potential criminality referred to in the letter." Then, having got that material, Mr. Filmer, who was then my assistant deputy, criminal side, on January 26 referred that to the RCMP for investigation. He did that out of an abundance of caution. He didn't do so because I told him to. I didn't even know that he had done it. But when I was advised that it had been done, and that the RCMP were looking at it, I discussed with my deputy the consequences of commenting publicly on the ombudsman's report or having it published, and we felt it could jeopardize a criminal investigation. We didn't know it was going to be a dry one. That's the reason why I made critical comments about the ombudsman. I don't retract them; I'd make them again today.

We went over it so thoroughly in February. I guess we could replay it forever.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that additional information, some of which I was unaware of. Hindsight has its advantages, there's no doubt about that. But I think, even pulling back, that clearly the statements were intemperate and ill-considered.

I'd like to deal with the question of B.C. Steamships, which the minister is responsible for. B.C. Steamships was established under the previous administration to operate the Princess Marguerite, which many people in this community and in British Columbia care a great deal about. The responsibility with respect to the Marguerite has shifted in this last little while: it was the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, which is a reasonable role.

I wonder if the Attorney-General has carried out any studies on the Marguerite, and has an understanding of the operations and some of the decisions made by the staff there in the last few months. I would note that the managing director, Mr. Wright; the manager of vessel operations, Mr. Hart; Gordon Hoare, the comptroller; and the general foreman, Tom Hodgson, all left B.C. Steamships- all in the last short period of time, at the same time that negotiations were taking place with respect to a competing service, Island Jetfoil. Has the minister made any inquiries with respect to these resignations?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, not specifically. What I have done in the short time I've had this new responsibility is to look at the plans for the season and decide that we should start the season earlier than had been planned, that we should have a promotional week with half-fare rates, and we should promote it really well, which we're doing. I will try to send a signal to Victoria citizens, particularly those businesses that are connected with tourism, that we aim to have the Marguerite do well, and to promote it more aggressively through the marketing of Tourism B.C. than we have done in the past to make it a service that we're proud of; to capitalize certainly on Expo, and to try to build up our traffic this year.

[5:45]

I haven't gone into personnel matters in any detail. The only thing I've followed very closely are the negotiations that have been going on, as you are probably aware, with the three unions. They have been going on extremely successfully, I might add.

I will be looking into a lot more of the operation. I find it an interesting challenge. One landlubber from the Cariboo was replaced as admiral this week with a landlubber from Victoria. But as a Victoria member, I at least know the importance of that service. It has a symbolic importance here in this community as well. It's a link with a past where those ships proudly connected us with Seattle and Vancouver, and many people associate those ships with Victoria and coming here. It has a very important, I think, emotional and symbolic connection.

I remember when you opened the service in 1975; I had the honour of being aboard.

MR. LAUK: You mean we didn't toss you over?

HON. MR. SMITH: No. I have always been pleased with what you did there. I don't take that away from you at all; I think you had some imagination.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it seems to me that if the minister has these concerns, as I'm sure any Victoria-area person would, then one of the first things he might have done was to make inquiries about all these resignations. What's the trouble at B.C. Steamships? Why did these people resign? I find it hard to believe that the minister might not be aware of some of the reasons that the new competing service was a problem, a very real factor, in all of those resignations. The evolution of Island Jetfoil and that crew, and various hangers-on around Island Jetfoil, was clearly a factor in all of those resignations from B.C. Steamships.

So I ask the minister: is he aware of an internal study at B.C. Steamships that indicates how serious the cash losses and revenues for B.C. Steamships would be if they accepted sharing berthage with the competing service, Island Jetfoil?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I'm not. But if there was some internal paperwork or speculation on that, I wouldn't be surprised, because I think that people who work at B.C. Steamships would naturally be interested in ensuring that the service did better financially than it had. They made very great strides last year in reducing their deficit by over half a million dollars, and they had a good year. I think they've used some tight management there over the past year or so, but I wouldn't be surprised if people who worked there were concerned about Island Jetfoil. Whenever you have a service coming in and duplicating a route, there is concern. We believe that, under the leasing arrangements we've made, it's fitting to allow the public to have that other service and that they need not compete with each other. One is a fast service with no chance to take a car; the other is a slower, more scenic service on which a certain number of cars can be carried as well. I think they can live side by side. If events prove us wrong, the leases are not forever.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is some document. I don't know of a specific study on that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could I ask then if the minister is saying those leases are now complete and yet inquiries weren't made about the negative financial impact of this on B.C. Steamships? What kind of managerial job is going on here, in the hands of this minister? Clearly it will have a negative impact. Might I ask, then, what arrangements have been made with respect to the lease, and at what fee and for what term?

HON. MR. SMITH: The leases and the amounts of the leases were supported by and appraised by an appraiser, so I think they will stand the test. The leases will be made public

[ Page 5513 ]

in due course, The leases were approved, I might add, on the recommendation of both the board of directors and the general manager of the corporation, and done so after a consideration of revenue and traffic as well as all other factors.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are we talking about $100,000 a year or something like that — $80,000 a year, $14,000 a year or maybe $14,500 a year?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think I've indicated before in this House that I wouldn't make public the detail of the leases, and I'm not being coy about it. It's just that I have to complete one more signature on them. But I'll make the details of those leases public. I have no reason not to, and I will, and I think you'll be able to look at the amounts and decide whether they're commercial. If you want to question me in question period, that's fine too.

MR. WILLIAMS: Again, you know, this is an ongoing enterprise. It will be negatively impacted by sharing its facilities, in effect, with Island Jetfoil. There are questions of safety as well, in terms of sharing the facilities, both here and in Seattle, with Island Jetfoil,

You know, the fact that four senior people were opposed to this arrangement and resigned because of the impact and safety questions involved should cause some pause on the part of the minister. Were I responsible, I would certainly want to know the impact on cash flow for the operation. There are reports available that indicate the impact on cash flow for that operation, and they are very negative indeed. Not to pursue these questions....

I would note, in addition, Mr. Chairman, that the board of directors made a decision in November that they should not participate with Island Jetfoil for all the various reasons the staff determined, in terms of the negative impact on the cash flow and the significant losses that it would represent for B.C. Steamships. It just didn't make business sense to entertain that idea.

So the board made a decision. This decision that we're talking about is a reversal of a previous decision that was made with all of these people involved in the decision-making process: Mr. Wright, who was managing director; Mr. Hart, who was manager of vessel operations; the comptroller, Mr. Hoare; and Mr. Hodgson, who was the general foreman. All of them resigned, because they saw the impact and what the implications were. There is a report available to the minister prepared by accountants and staff of B.C. Steamships that would indicate clearly the kind of haemorrhage that would be involved if this were proceeded with. I think the minister owes it to the House and, in doing his job adequately, should dig that out. He should advise the House what the level of hemorrhaging was thought to be — that is, the considered analysis by the staff and the accountants for B.C. Steamships with respect to the hemorrhaging impact of dealing with Island Jetfoil in sharing their facilities with them.

Perhaps he could think about it overnight and come back with some answers. Clearly, B.C. Steamships is vulnerable, and that doesn't seem to have been considered.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.