1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1285 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Debtor Assistance

Act (Bill 77). Hon. Ms. Young.

Introduction and first reading — 1285

Oral Questions

Breakdown of BCFGA negotiations. Mr. Bennett — 1285

White Paper on education. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1285

ICBC refunds. Mr. Curtis — 1286

Increased premiums for volunteer fire department

emergency vehicles. Mr. Curtis — 1287

Source of mining profit figure released to NDP

News . Mr. Gibson — 1287

Insurance coverage on out of province drivers. Mr.

Phillips — 1287

RNABC-BCHA dispute. Mrs. Jordan — 1288

Administration of Justice Act (Bill 2). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1288

Mr. Curtis — 1290

Mr. Smith — 1290

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1292

Mr. Curtis — 1294

Mr. Gibson — 1295

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1297

Administration Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 3). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1298

Mr. Smith — 1298

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1298

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1298

Occupiers' Liability Act (Bill 4). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1298

Mr. Smith — 1299

Mr. Gardom — 1299

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1299

Frustrated Contracts Act (Bill 5). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1299

Mr. Smith — 1299

Mr. Gardom — 1299

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1300

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1300

Crown Proceedings Act (Bill 6). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1300

Mr. Smith — 1301

Mr. Gardom — 1301

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1303

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 33). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1303

Coroners Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 43). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1303

Mr. Gardom — 1303

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 44). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1303

Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 45).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1303

Mr. Smith — 1304

Mr. Gardom — 1304

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1304

Unified Family Court Act (Bill 49). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1304

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1305

Prejudgment Interest Act (Bill 66). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1305

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1305

Mr. Gardom — 1306

Mr. Smith — 1306

Mrs. Jordan — 1306

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1307

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974 (Bill 7). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1307

Mr. Bennett — 1308

Mr. McGeer — 1308

Mr. Morrison — 1309

Mr. Phillips — 1309

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1310

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1311

Mr. Smith — 1312

Mr. Gardom — 1312

Mr. Gibson — 1313

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1313

Division on second reading — 1314

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 9). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1315

Mr. Bennett — 1315

Mr. McGeer — 1316

Mr. Curtis — 1317

Mr. Fraser — 1318

Mr. Chabot — 1319

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1320

MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries

today is a group of students from Aldergrove Secondary School

in Aldergrove, along with their teacher Mr. Doug Ruggles. I'd

like the House to make them welcome.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): In the galleries today

we have His Worship Mayor Van Hansen of the fair Village of New

Denver, along with Alderman Ernie de Rosa. I would like the

House to make them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

DEBTOR ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Ms. Young presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Debtor Assistance

Act .

Bill 77 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

BREAKDOWN OF BCFGA NEGOTIATIONS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Agriculture: In light of the announcement by

the BCFGA negotiating group last week as to the breakdown in

negotiations for the commodity group which they represent, I

wonder if the Minister wishes to comment on his answer of last

week when he said they were only apart on two points.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

that's the industry's position that talks have broken down. They have

broken down temporarily, but they will be resumed, as I said, when

either party has something new to add to the discussion, and my

department is working on something new. There still is this two-point

difference. One of them is on the amount to be paid for labour which is

a factor not only of the amount per hour, but the number of acres and

the yield per acre. The other factor is on the cents per pound that

they will be guaranteed for their fruit. The question is whether the

top grades of fruit will bear all of the packing costs and sale costs,

or whether these costs should be charged against all of the grades.

Now, there still are only the two points but they are both major ones.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental to the Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker. Are you not also apart on the amount of acreage

that must be...the type of yields per acre on the 26,000

pounds per acre?

HON. MR. STUPICH: We were, but we have agreed to between

22,000 and 24,000 pounds. It's close enough on that one issue

that it won't cause a breakdown. We've accepted their figure on

the production.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental again. In elaborating on the

labour rate: the information I have is that the government

changed their position on the original labour rates which they

recommended as of last December 1973, and which they produced

to the industry, and have lowered the rate from that.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, is that a question?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, that's a question. I was wondering if that

information is correct.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, there was no firm figure advanced at

that time. We did talk about figures, and as I said, one would

have to consider also the acreage and the yield per acre. When

we start agreeing on one of these three points, well, then

there has to be some agreement on the third, or there's no

agreement in total.

MR. BENNETT: Just one more supplemental, When do you plan

the next meeting?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, up to this point the meetings

have been called at the pleasure of the industry. The next

meeting will be called when I have something to propose, which

I expect should be within a week.

WHITE PAPER ON EDUCATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Minister of

Education, Mr. Speaker, whether she'll table in the House the

White Paper on education prior to consideration of her

estimates?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): (Mike not on) ...hopefully.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister

whether, indeed, the report has been fully completed, and

whether some Members of the House, namely Members of the New

Democratic Party caucus, have already received a copy?

[ Page 1286 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: A great number of people have been

offering their help and their assistance to me in drafting it.

No one at this time, except the people within my department,

has actually seen the final draft.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether Members

of the government side have received something other than the

final draft, but a draft of the White Paper on education?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, they have been asked to give their

opinion on a preliminary paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the

Minister's estimates are likely to come up soon, may I ask the

Minister once more whether or not all Members of the House can

be provided with the same information that other Members have

received, prior to your estimates?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The point is, as I said before, there is

only myself and some members of the department who have the

actual final paper, and who have seen the final paper. My

intent was that everyone would see it collectively together

when it's finally produced.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member, you are

pushing it a little far, and Beauchesne at 148 says that

you must not seek information about matters which are at this

stage still secret and involve advice given to the Crown by its

Ministers or its officers or to Members of the government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I appreciate your comments, Mr.

Speaker. I'd like to point out, however, that the document I

referred to — in other words, the draft prior to the final

version — was the one I started asking questions on just as

soon as I was told by the Minister that the final version was

not yet made public. What I find curious is that some Members

of this House have seen a second-to-final draft and the rest of

us have seen no draft at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there's nothing curious about any

government documents being kept privileged until they are ready

for production to the public.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, just to be perfectly clear

on this point of order, I was not referring to the privileged

government document. I was referring to a preliminary

draft.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that really confuses me.

ICBC REFUNDS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Transport and Communications — and I'll give

him an out on this, he may well want to take it as notice. If

he does I'll certainly understand. The ICBC insurance rebates:

could the Minister indicate how many refund application forms

have been printed, and how many refunds ICBC actually expect to

make in the course of this insurance year?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I

don't know how many were printed. I already released a figure, in

answer to a similar question — I don't know how long ago; hundreds of

questions have been asked in this House this session — that the maximum

number we expected would be between 15 and 20 per cent of the total.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the

Minister could indicate, at some time, at his pleasure, how

many refund application forms have in fact been printed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you asking the number of applications

we get, or the number of forms we print?

MR. CURTIS: The number of forms you print.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because there is not necessarily a

relationship between the two. As of last week there were only

12,000 requests.

MR. BENNETT: In view of the figures you gave the House last

week that the government would be paying an average of $71 per

car, is the government planning on applying for refund because

this rate is higher than last year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't work out an average rate. That's

your figure.

MR. BENNETT: I divided the total into the amount of money

you said you were paying.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could

answer this question by saying that that limited figure that's

been admitted by the previous governments, in the order form,

did not include a substantial portion of costs which the

previous government hid — in the Attorney-General's department

for all the legal cases that went through the court in this

department, and in this department and that department. We

found that the previous government weren't telling the whole

story; they

[ Page 1287 ]

were hiding in a thousand departments.

Mr. Speaker, the important thing is: no longer will any

civil servant in this province have to stand up in court and

defend what should have been a government responsibility.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): A supplemental. I'd like to

know if this figure includes collision coverage for all the

government vehicles, or does it not include collision

coverage?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you referring to a present situation?

MR. MORRISON: I am referring to the $75 or $71 average which

was given to us by the Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am quite sure that they are being

treated in the same way as every other vehicle of that type. As

you know, there is a variety of types of vehicles, and not all

vehicles in the province are required to take collision. It is

my understanding that they take the same coverage that the

others have to take.

MR. MORRISON: A supplemental. Then I would like to know if

there are any other fleet-users that are getting this rate. I

would like to know if there are any municipalities who are

getting this rate because theirs obviously is a great deal

different to the one you have just given us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Of course, you are talking averages here,

you see, which includes almost 10,000 different kinds of

vehicles. I would have to have a breakdown of every department,

every vehicle, every fleet of vehicles, the different sizes.... That is something you could ask in estimates.

MR. D. M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): A supplementary on

the same subject. We were talking about rebates, and I would

like to know, Mr. Minister, why a pickup truck is not included

for rebate. In many families a pickup truck is a family

vehicle, used as a car. Why is that particular vehicle not

included for rebate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you have to draw the line somewhere

and that is where the line was drawn.

INCREASED PREMIUMS FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE

DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister with respect to

volunteer fire department emergency vehicles: has the Minister received

specific complaints about dramatic increases in premiums for those

vehicles?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have received one complaint, and I have

already referred it to the Insurance Corporation.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is that particular

subject under review by ICBC and yourself? Again, I emphasize

that it is volunteer fire department emergency vehicles.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I didn't say it was under review; I

am not saying it is under review. As I say, I think I have only

received one complaint and I referred it to ICBC management

last week.

SOURCE OF MINING PROFIT FIGURE

RELEASED TO NDP NEWS .

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a

question for the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I

presume he is familiar with the NDP publication called the NDP

News , which in the March 1 issue lists $300 million

mining profits. I wonder if the Minister would say whether he

gave that figure to the writers of the newsletter, and, if so,

how he comes at it, because I have been unable to arrive at a

corroboration anywhere else.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

No, I did not give that figure to the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No. I didn't say it was a false rumour. I

said that I didn't give that figure.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You said it wasn't authentic.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I did not say it was not authentic....

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister

say whether the figure is correct?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It is very close, I'd say. (Laughter.)

INSURANCE COVERAGE ON

OUT-OF-PROVINCE DRIVERS

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct another question to the

Minister of Transport and Communications in charge of ICBC. If

I am a valid driver's licence holder in British Columbia and go

to the Province of Alberta and drive a car registered in

[ Page 1288 ]

that province, I am fully covered by insurance, providing

the owner of that car has the same coverage as I have at home.

If a holder of a valid Alberta driver's licence comes to

British Columbia and drives a vehicle, say, owned by myself, is

he covered?

MR. SPEAKER: Surely that's a question of law.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not a question of law. It's a

question of....

MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, I think it is a question of

law.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. It's not a question of law. We're talking

about.... Listen! We're just handing out driver insurance

premiums, and it's a very timely question, Mr. Speaker. It has

nothing to do with law; it has something to do with ICBC.

MR. SPEAKER: If it has anything to do with ICBC; you say it

has nothing to do with law. Well, that's a new argument. The

Minister wishes to answer the question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I don't mind answering the question

for my good friend. I don't mind educating him. There is a law

governing the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. There

is a law governing the automobile insurance part of the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Under the law there

are regulations which spell out in some detail where coverage

is, or is not, available. It was the intent of the drafters of

the legislation to provide the maximum possible coverage to

every vehicle with a B.C. licence plate, and to every

individual with a B.C. driver's licence. It may be a matter of

law, but it is my opinion — let me put it that way — that that

vehicle, because it has a B.C. licence plate, is covered.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me point out to the Hon. Members that

Beauchesne rules out that kind of question. And the

answer given by the Minister only supports my reasons — where

seeking information set forth in documents equally accessible

to the questioners such as statutes, public reports,

regulations or what not. Therefore it is not a proper question

in the question period.

RNABC-BCHA DISPUTE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Minister of Health. The Hon. Minister suggested on

Thursday in question and answer period that there was

communication going on behind the scenes in the RNABC-BCHIS

dispute. My question is: is part of that communication with the

RNABC?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I think I

indicated quite clearly that in these matters there is always

an informal kind of communication. I suggest at the present

time that there is no.... And BCHIS is not involved. Let's get

that straight. BCHA is involved; that's the B.C. Hospital

Association. They have broken negotiations off with the RNABC — that's

the Registered Nurses Association. I don't think there

are any formal talks between either of those two. There are

informal talks going around, I am sure, in certain hospitals

between people who are interested in both aspects — the

delivery of health care, and other people who are interested in

the demands of the nurses. On that kind of basis, I think there

is communication. But there certainly are no official, formal

negotiations going on at the present time, as I understand

it.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Mr. Speaker, I

have pleasure in introducing Bill 2. Although this is only the

vehicle, not the implementation, it represents an attempt to

catch up and give a totally new commitment to the quality of

justice in this province after 20 years of neglect.

As I say, this is the vehicle, and in order to correct any

misapprehension, I would point out that the justice development

administration does not, and will not, be running the courts.

It is to plan the necessary changes to improve the

administration of justice in this province; to consult, to

coordinate, to negotiate because we are dealing, for example,

with the physical courtroom facilities of some 22 cities, 25

districts, 3 towns, and the whole area that is still

unorganized, and therefore directly subject to provincial

administration of justice.

It is an interim measure therefore and a vehicle for

implementing the essential changes that must be invoked at this

time if we are to uplift the administration of justice in this

province.

While I am prepared to answer questions in detail at the

committee stage of this bill I would like to say we propose

that the Justice Development Commission should be headed by the

Deputy Minister of the Attorney-General's department (Mr.

Vickers). We have on that committee to represent various

segments of the justice system: John Hogarth;

[ Page 1289 ]

Ed Epp, who is Corrections; and Jack Cram, who is courts. I

want to also express my appreciation to advisers assisting us

in the programme as we have gone along. I would my appreciation

to advisers assisting us in the programme as we have gone

along. I would mention, from the judiciary, Chief Judge Brahan,

chief of the Provincial Court; Chief Justice Nathan Nemetz of

the Supreme Court of British Columbia; Dr. Matheson; Gordon

Cunningham of the RCMP; Brian Williams, representing the

Canadian bar; Lloyd McKenzie, the Law Society of British

Columbia; Joe Wood, who is representing the bar on our advisory

committee; and Rocksborough Smith from the Parole Board. We

have attempted and we have secured great community

participation in the plans which are so terribly important at

the present time.

I want to give the House, in introducing this bill, a little

bit of a look at the crisis as I see it in the provincial

courts as they have been up to the present time.

To say they are overloaded is placing the matter at its very

minimum. The Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is

nodding his head because he has a facilities programme in

Chilliwack which is very serious indeed. But I'm thinking at

first of the numbers. In the City of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, by

our last count we had a backlog of 2,600 criminal cases, even

though with the good efforts of the judges and the prosecutors'

staff as we have known them they were processing 370 criminal

cases and 91 drug cases each week. All of our projection

figures indicate that the problem I am speaking of today is

going to escalate in years to come.

For example, in the first six months of last year, 1973, we

had an increase in Criminal Code offences amounting to

24 per cent. The Vancouver City Police have reported that 70

per cent of the serious crimes they detect are drug-related.

The drug-related offences have undoubtedly contributed heavily

to the escalation and the piling up of the backlog of cases in

our courts and to the victimization of the public.

We therefore look not only at the criminal courts but at the

juvenile and family courts. We find again, to cite the case of

Vancouver alone, that the number of young people or juveniles

coming before the family and juvenile courts in the City of

Vancouver has increased from 300 young people in 1961 to 1,000

young people in 1971. Increasingly, there is a trend, which is

very deplorable, to elevate young people from the juvenile

court, because of the inadequacy of that court and its allied

facilities, to adult court, which is bad for the young person

involved and in the long run very bad for the community.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

We, of course, are faced with the population explosion in

the Province of B.C. where our population has doubled in the

last two decades.

Therefore we see the need of moving with dispatch and with

all the resources at our command to improve the qualified

trained staff to man our important court facilities and to

improve the training and availability of prosecutors who cannot

only in fairness present a case to the court but also vet out

of the court system those cases which should not be before the

court at all.

We see the need for modern management techniques in the

management of the courts, and we recognize the need, therefore,

for qualified court administrators. We are determined as a

government that there shall be equal delivery of justice

services in all of the areas of the province, not just in the

lower mainland, not just in an area where the revenues have

made possible the provision of good court services, but

throughout the whole of British Columbia.

We see the necessity to coordinate the work of the courts —

provincial court, county court, Supreme Court of British

Columbia, and court of appeal — which so far have gone their own

uncoordinated and almost unrelated ways.

We see the necessity of resolving ever-increasing numbers of

cases outside the courtroom itself.

We see the need to upgrade the physical facilities of the

Provincial Court of British Columbia which have ranged from a

court meeting in a laundromat to courts meeting in police

stations and to courts meeting in some cases in very good

surroundings. But there is a tremendously uneven quality in the

provision of these essential court services.

Sometimes we have municipalities which simply cannot afford

to provide adequate justice services to their people. In other

cases we have urban centres which are required by the nature of

things to look after the court cases of people who live outside

of their boundaries. In other cases we have municipalities

which simply are not sufficiently motivated to provide the good

court services which are essential at the present time.

In terms of cost, the programme of which this Act is, as I

say, the interim vehicle for coordination and planning

envisages placing into the justice system an additional $6

million to upgrade the quality of justice in the Province of

British Columbia. That's why I say it is a major new commitment

to improve justice services and the delivery of legal services

throughout this province.

Six million dollars is the estimated amount. While we have

had, in the past, municipalities depending upon fine revenue

for the money they raise to provide justice services, we

believe there should be a divorce between the amount of fine

revenue that a municipality can collect and the provision of

legal services in that municipality so that in no stretch can

anyone say the municipality has any kind of a vested interest

in maximizing fine revenue and intake in that particular

municipality.

[ Page 1290 ]

The situation I have been describing, which as I say

represents a crisis in the Province of B.C., will not only

relieve the municipalities of the present situation and enable

us as a province to throw these additional resources into the

fight but will take from the municipalities the burden of the

improvements that must be made in the future. Roughly speaking,

we've been spending about $7 million a year on the

administration of justice provincial-wise; the fine revenue has

been a little less than that — but approximately those figures.

In terms of the crime figures I've been quoting, in terms of

the rising population, in terms of that ever-increasing backlog

and the absence of trained people, to leave this burden upon

the municipalities would in future years leave them with a

backbreaking financial responsibility.

With the approval of the municipalities through the UBCM

this government is assuming, as has been done in Ontario in

different ways — and I would like to think we are going it

better — the administration of justice.

The situation I describe as crisis will worsen; it will not

remain static. Unless we tackle the problem of prevention of

crime and unless we improve the court facilities and the court

procedures, we will have a situation where we reach a point of

no return.

In many of the big cities of the world, even on the North

American continent, they have reached that point of no return

where they've given up on the justice process. Citizens,

instead of being ready to spend their money to improve the

processes and the preventive and detecting techniques, opt for

vacated streets, for commissionaires in apartment buildings,

for homes barred and sometimes armed against entry, for a

people increasingly alienated and withdrawn. They have given up

providing the energy and money that will improve the services

and prevent crime and instead have devoted that energy and

money to protecting themselves from the effects of crime.

As I say, this measure represents merely a vehicle in terms of the

assumption of the administration of justice which we are proposing and

a vehicle which is moving very quickly, because we're hopeful that in

the municipal thing, the negotiations can be completed by April 1, and

the assumption proceed at that time. We have made progress in that

respect and we've had the co-operation of most of the municipalities of

the province, and the approval of UBCM, and we have been successful in

our negotiations with the trade unions representing the various people

who are now working in the court services, so that no individual who is

now working in the delivery of legal services for a municipality will

be able to say he has lost anything as a result of this programme upon

which we're embarked. While all of this is going well, we nevertheless

think it has to go quickly and that needed resources have to be poured

into this very important social programme in the life of the Province

of B.C.

I therefore, Mr. Speaker, have pleasure in moving second

reading of this Bill 2.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker,

speaking on second reading of Bill 2, the Administration of

Justice Act, I would like to point out that the

Attorney-General in his remarks just concluded dwelled at

length on just one

section of five distinct areas which are

covered in the

interpretation

section of the Act. He touched

briefly on the prevention of crime, admittedly, but very

briefly in comparison to the balance of his remarks dealing

with the courts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order. I think it would probably be

proper to allow the official opposition the chance to lead off

the debate.

MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, as you wish. I was

recognized.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For a moment I thought I was in

committee.

MR. CURTIS: Are you sure you're not? I'll happily defer if

that is the Chair's wish.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In order to keep things in their traditional

form, I'll recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I thank the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) for yielding the floor. I

thought we would be following the traditional manner and

perhaps I was a little slow in getting to my feet because I was

running over in my mind some of the remarks of the

Attorney-General as he spoke in this debate and then took his

place after speaking.

I couldn't help but listen to the Attorney-General with a

feeling that I had heard many of the remarks that he made

concerning Bill 2 in another debate on another bill. That bill

was the Energy Act that came before the House at a

previous session. It's obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that in

introducing this bill for second reading the Attorney-General

has used many of the same arguments for the necessity for this

type of legislation.

He's referred to the backbreaking responsibility that would

be that of the municipalities in the Province of British

Columbia were they to continue the operation of the judicial

system under their administration, particularly as we move into

a field of increased law enforcement. He said he's hopeful that

negotiations will be completed with the municipalities by April

1, so that assumption of the

[ Page 1291 ]

operation of the courts can start soon after that date. He

described it as a crisis situation and he used that crisis as

ample justification for introduction of this bill. I would be

inclined to agree with the Hon. Attorney-General if the purpose

of this bill was simply to streamline and bring into effect new

procedures with respect to the administration of justice in the

Province of British Columbia, particularly if the procedures

were in line with the recommendations of the Law Reform

Commission. In reading this bill, I see a very much different

concept than that, Mr. Speaker, and that's what I'd like to

speak about for the next few minutes.

I'd like to say now that I think the most significant

element of administration of justice in this province or in any

other jurisdiction in Canada is the doctrine of the separation

of powers. It's been traditional and with us for several

hundred years, and it is a doctrine that we should maintain in

any system of justice if we expect it to be the vehicle that

people can depend upon when appealing to the law for equity

before the law.

I think that this bill establishes a principle of

centralized authority over the enforcement elements of the

justice system in the province. It purports to be essentially

an administration, coordination and research vehicle, but it

goes much further than that. It allows for vertical integration

from the top and destroys the principle of a responsive and

responsible administration of justice in this province and

could lead to the removal of our judicial system and the

effectiveness of our courts as we know them today.

The specific purpose of this bill is to establish a

commission which would thereafter become engaged in inquiries

into all aspects of the administration of justice, together

with the power to carry out whatever programme is deemed

suitable in the circumstances. This is where I have my greatest

concern, because the power is granted through the provisions of

this Act to an independent board by the provisions of the Act

itself — powers which are far above and beyond anything that is

necessary for them to do a complete and independent evaluation

of the judicial system in this province.

I'm concerned about the possibility of interference with an

independent bar and an impartial judiciary by government

activities in the field of the administration of justice. I

think, Mr. Speaker, that we have ample reason to be concerned

in British Columbia, because this is not a new precedent. It is

not a new example that we have had placed before us for the

first time this afternoon. We've seen this same pattern

repeated in a number of bills passed through this House by the

government majority in the past 18 months.

I think the Minister, when closing the debate, should direct his

mind to what the function of the commission will really be. Will the

commission consult with the public at large in the matter of the

development of administration of justice and establishment of policies

which will have a direct effect on every resident in this province? For

example, will there be hearings to determine whether people want the

right of appeal to groups and to commissions, or to such departments as

the Department of Consumer Services, or will the commission, once

established, be responsible to no one but themselves? Will they be the

final authority in shaping policies and the future course of the

administration of justice in this province without referral back to the

Lieutenant-Governor, or to the Attorney-General or, most important of

all, to the Legislative Assembly of this province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no.

MR. SMITH: As I read the bill and some of the clauses in it — and I won't refer to it specifically this afternoon, Mr.

Attorney-General, because that would be an infringement on the

rules of the debate in second reading — I know, and the

Attorney-General must know, that the power is there if they

decide to exercise it without coming back to you or to this

Legislative Assembly.

Will the administration of justice be molded to conform with

NDP policies and philosophies, or will it be formed and molded

around the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's too much.

MR. SMITH: That's too much? Certainly the power is there,

Mr. Attorney-General. You know it's there. You know it is in

other Acts — the Energy Act of this province. It's only

a matter of the commission themselves determining their course

of action without reference back to this Legislative

Assembly.

You know, in

summary, the bill appears to me to be saying

that the government wants to go into the whole court system and

administration of justice in the Province of British Columbia

and review it, including the matter of police organization and

police administration.

The bill says we really don't know how much money it will

cost, but as openers we will throw $1.5 million in to get it

started, and whatever cost is above that will be provided by

the Minister of Finance out of consolidated revenue.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The estimate is already approved.

MR. SMITH: The Attorney-General, in my opinion, places

himself in a very ambivalent position. He is consulted on

matters of appointment to the bench.

[ Page 1292 ]

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Just sit and listen for a minute, Mr. Minister.

You might learn something.

He is consulted on matters of appointments to the bench and,

of course, has complete say in the appointment of provincial

court judges.

The Attorney-General is now, or soon will be, responsible

for all provincial courts in the province, both civil and

criminal. Crown counsel are appointed by the Attorney-General

to prosecute offences.

Legal aid counsel are responsible to the Attorney-General,

and they defend in this province. Police who make arrests will

be under the Attorney-General, and so it goes with respect to

vertical integration.

Government now does much business by order-in-council.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No more than usual, Mr. Minister? Don't be

ridiculous. The number of orders-in-council passed in the first

three months after your party was elected to office was above

and beyond anything approved in the entire previous year under

Social Credit administration. Don't be ridiculous.

It has by administrative action denied many people, rich and

poor, deserving and undeserving, of recourse to courts — for

example: the Land Commission Act, the Energy Act,

the communications and transportation Act, to name just a few.

Government is now a very big employer, not only in its own

right, but through the agency of the Crown corporations.

Government is now much involved in the everyday life of the

people of this province, much more so than ever before;

therefore, we must have adequate assurance against possible

bureaucratic oppression, which is the one thing that we do have

as long as we maintain a strong and independent judiciary and

legal profession in this province, not subject to interference

from the government or a child appointed by the government.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They both support this bill.

MR. SMITH: They support many of the concepts of the bill, Mr.

Attorney-General, as I do. But whenever you insist, for some reason

unknown to those of us in the official opposition, on bringing in a

bill which not only takes the ideas that have been presented to you by

the Law Reform Commission, but goes far beyond that in granting powers

to an independently appointed board, then I say that you have gone too

far. You have exceeded what is required and you have placed these

boards and commissions above and beyond the recall of this Legislative

Assembly; and that is not required in law reform in this province, as

you well know, Mr. Attorney-General.

If there is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that we will not approve

of in the official opposition, it is the tendency of this

government to take good ideas and then completely emasculate

them by taking the authority away from the elected

representatives in this Legislative Assembly. We've seen it in

bills before us in the last 18 months. We've seen it again in

this bill on administration of justice in the Province of

British Columbia. It is an entirely unnecessary step and one

which we in the official opposition will never support — not

that principle.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We in this party intend to

approve in principle and vote in principle for Bill 2, the

Administration of Justice Act.

There will be a fair number of questions that we'll be

asking in committee stage. For example, there has been concern

expressed by bar association members about the coordination of

this group with their own reform and realignment groupings

which they have. This is, I think, a very important thing to

remember: that there have been up to date many people who have

donated vast amounts of their time to come up with proposals

for change within the existing legal system and the bar

association and the Law Society; and they have done, I think, a

pretty good job, considering, as I said, that they were acting

generally as volunteers.

We will want to know from the Attorney-General, perhaps when

he closes off debate on second reading, what steps he has taken

to coordinate with these existing bodies.

It is great, Mr. Speaker, to appoint a brand new and

professional coordinating group, such as this one will be, to

carry out some very fine objectives, but if you are in the

process of doing that, going to wipe out some of the very

useful jobs that have been done in the past by other groups,

which are volunteer groups, perhaps more thought will have to

be given to it.

I am interested by the reference to Dr. Matheson and the

role which he is going to play in this. I am pleased that he

will be involved. Dr. Matheson came up with a very interesting

concept some time ago which relates to the use of computers in

law. It is my belief as a non-lawyer — someone who spent three

years in a law school grubbing through the books trying to find

references and other things — that computer application to the

legal field could only improve the delivery of justice in

British Columbia.

The computer, I think, could be harnessed very successfully

to provide some basic information which people at the present

time are not able to get, except of course by going to a lawyer

themselves and paying

[ Page 1293 ]

for the information. I think a great deal more could be done

with respect to computers, and also within the profession

itself, within the delivery of justice. I think the computer

has great potential, and I am pleased to see that Dr. Matheson,

who has been saying some useful and encouraging things in this

area, is going to be on the committee.

The areas which need improvement are numerous. The

Attorney-General has pointed out that we may well, in British

Columbia, be swamped by crime in our major city, Vancouver,

unless we take steps to avoid the fate of some other North

American cities. He's perfectly right. British Columbia is top

in just about every violent crime in Canada, of all the

provinces: murder, rape, robbery with violence. British

Columbia always seems to come top. Why? Nobody, I guess, really

knows. Excuses have been given; reasons have been given such as

the mobility of the population, the climate, or whatever.

Still, we do have the worst problem in Canada, and to date,

as the Attorney-General has pointed out, we have been somewhat

behind some of the other provinces — I think particularly of

Ontario — in efforts to bring the law up to date and bring the

delivery of justice up to date, and bring British Columbia into

the '70s.

The commission is to develop coordinated plans for future

development. I think when you realize what the projections have

for us in the future this is enormously important, because we

have for too long in British Columbia carried on on the

assumption that a little more like last year with much the same

legal system — perhaps throw a few more lawyers into it, or a

few more judges into it, or a few more buildings into it,

either for courtrooms or for prisons — would solve some of the

problems that we have.

They haven't been solving the problems. The drug-related

crimes are increasing substantially. Crimes related to alcohol

are increasing substantially. Straight crimes of violence are

increasing substantially. And there seems to be at the present

time no reversal of any of these trends of past years, despite

the good efforts of the Attorney-General over the last 18

months. I don't think there's been any appreciable change since

he's taken over, comparing it with his predecessor.

The research, then, is going to be a major factor, and we

welcome that. We trust that in this research work there will be

a great deal done with respect to parole. Parole is a touchy

subject. It has been toughened up at the federal level. I'm not

altogether sure that the results of the toughening up have been

what was hoped. It costs some $8,000 to $10,000, perhaps even

more now, to keep a man incarcerated for a year. To keep him

out on parole costs a very, very small fraction of the total

cost of keeping a man behind bars. I trust that a great deal of

the work of this commission will be in the parole area.

The record of people on parole committing crimes is not bad,

when all is said and done. Sure, crimes have been committed by

those who have been given parole — no question about it. But if

we realize that society is better protected by taking

calculated risks on parolees in the hopes of rehabilitating the

majority, or the vast majority of them, I think that society

perhaps will benefit in the long run.

The concept of simply locking a man up until his time is

through has not proved to be a corrective experience for most

who are in that situation, and experimentation in parole, I

think, would be a desirable thing. I mentioned that we've had a

tightening-up at the federal level. I believe Mr. Street, the

head of the parole board, is going on to become a judge in

Ontario, and perhaps there will be changes there as well, and

perhaps indeed, because of the commission that the Attorney-General is establishing, we in British Columbia may well be

able to be in the forefront of change and of new concepts and

of experimentation.

Again, experimentation in this area makes people fearful.

They think of people who are committed for dangerous crimes

being allowed out. They think of these people committing a

crime again, and there's no doubt that it does occasionally

happen, but to date what we have not had, I think, is an

adequate explanation from, in particular, political leaders

that this is a necessary risk that society must take, in the

interest of making sure that in the future the number of people

who do commit a crime again or are recommitted for crimes is

fewer than would otherwise be the case.

I trust that this commission will spend a great deal of time

in the whole field of parole. I can think of few areas more

important, and I trust that the Attorney-General will be

encouraging them to carry out as much work as they can.

The suggestion that we're somehow getting an additional $6

million to upgrade services is very good. I'm pleased that the

Attorney-General has added money to his budget for this. We are

in a curious position, of course, of having passed the

estimates prior to considering the legislation, which puts the

cart before the horse, but I think that in this situation we're

into an area where perhaps the questioning that was done in

estimates and the questioning that will come up in the

committee stage will pin down precisely what we did vote the

money for.

If I can repeat the criticisms I made on Friday, I would

suggest that more care in future be taken in preparing budgets

of the commission, as well as the Attorney-General himself. The

difficulty we faced last week was that when we were questioning

on specific line items under the correctional services, we

found that many of the things which should have been there,

which were indicated by the headings to be there, were in fact

tucked away in a blanket vote

[ Page 1294 ]

for this particular commission.

I think that it's important for the Attorney-General to

start straightening out where the commission's responsibility

is and where it is not, because I got the feeling last week

that the voting that we did on the commission's money was a

blanket cover for many of the things which should have been put

into straight operations expenses. I know the Attorney-General

himself looked very unhappy last week when informed by his

department....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was prepared last October before we

had the other figures.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I could depart from what I said last

Friday, Mr. Attorney-General, I would indicate to you the

difficulty of knowing precisely what this commission is going

to do when we have been told already, on Friday, that it's

going to be doing things which are not under 5, under

"functions." For instance, improvement of library services, if

my memory serves me, was one of the areas where perhaps the

commission money would be used in experimental ways to see

whether they could not improve library services for the

Corrections Branch, in other words vote 34.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that the commission may be

overloaded with things which I believe could be administrative.

The indication I got last Friday was that the commission would

not simply be doing pure research, but it would be entering

into operations in a fairly substantial way, perhaps under the

guise of experiment, or under the guise of a new programme, I'm

not sure which. I fear that if the commission does not get

involved in that manner, the results will be that the

operations end of things — the correctional service and others — will tend to lose heart and tend to be less effective than

they otherwise would.

It is a question of making sure that the existing provincial

facilities and the existing personnel are not bypassed so they

feel that nothing will be happening under their particular

areas of jurisdiction because the commission will be the

golden-haired boy and will be getting all the money and will be

getting all the new programmes that might come up. I got that

impression on Friday and I trust that the Attorney-General will

take steps to make sure that the role of the commission is

better defined and that we do not have excuses given when we

ask for line-by-line analysis of the votes in other areas that,

"Well, the commission, of course, will be entering in and

providing money off its own bat in many other areas. "

As I mentioned, we will be supporting this in second

reading. We'll be questioning it more closely at the committee

stage and we wish the commission well.

MR. CURTIS: I must subscribe to many of the views expressed

by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) in his response

to the Attorney-General's remarks in opening second reading of

Bill 2.

I would like to point out that, as I was saying earlier, it

seems to me that the Minister zeroed in on just one particular

segment of the total law enforcement and justice administration

mechanism in his remarks, with the exception, admittedly, of a

brief reference to the increasing problem of crime in our

cities and in cities elsewhere in North America. Nevertheless,

I think that the balloon could very well go up in connection

with Bill 2, as individuals and various groups come to realize

just how all-encompassing it could be — and I emphasize that it

could be.

I'm not prepared to suggest that this Minister or this

government with its present complement would abuse the

authority given under the Administration of Justice Act,

but I think that a number of those who have had an opportunity

as lay people to step back from it and examine it carefully and

in consultation with others see the opportunity for abuse

somewhere down the line by this particular Minister's

successors two years from now, five years from now, or

whenever. I think there is considerable concern in those

circles where the thing has been examined on a line-by-line

basis.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to the

statement which I assume was made public over the weekend — it's dated

March 15 — by the president of B.C. Federation of

Peace Officers. I was prohibited from commenting on this to any

great extent during the Minister's estimates last week, but

sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, the matter has to be brought on

the floor of this House and to the attention of the people of

British Columbia. I can assume that the statement was prepared

by the president in consultation with other members of the

peace officers' federation and I understand that it was

released to the news media yesterday or today.

It is very alarmed. It's an alarmed document and it

certainly shows that someone — the Attorney-General or someone

designated by him — has not done his or their homework in

explaining the purpose of this bill to one important segment of

the community which is vitally concerned with it. If that were

the case, then I assume that we would have sort of general

endorsement of Bill 2 by the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers.

Instead we have this, and I won't quote it in its entirety

because a number of Members will have had an opportunity to

read it, but in part:

"We feel it our duty to the citizens we serve to

demonstrate

that we are a responsible group by expressing our concern and

alarm in regard to legislation that provides for such

sweeping and all-encompassing power granted to a politically

appointed body — the Justice

[ Page 1295 ]

Development Commission.... Never to our knowledge has

such complete authority been granted to a non-elected entity in this

province that will possess totalitarian control."

Now, that's their statement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's just not so.

MR. CURTIS: I would feel a little happier with the words

"could possess totalitarian control." Mr. Speaker, the

Attorney-General says: "It's just not so." Well, if it's just

not so, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, then

why has he not ensured that these individuals, who are

dedicated and career people, have not had that explained to

them?

Why would they find it necessary to issue a statement that

is pretty condemning in its observations on this particular

piece of legislation? They've been consulted, but only just. I

know a number of them; most Members in this House would know a

number of members of the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers.

They're not stupid. They're not slow to grasp it when

something is explained to them. So what has happened? Why have

they not had all the information they needed in order to

clearly understand what is intended by this legislation and

therefore not find it necessary to make a very, very definite

statement against the bill as it now stands on the order paper?

They say;

"We've been consulted, we've been invited and have

attended a few meetings concerning the proposed police Act. Now

we understand the Administration of Justice Act is to

take precedence. If this is the case, we can only conclude we

are being excluded for some reason and that the few meetings we

did attend were to pacify us. In conclusion, we submit that

this type of legislation could be a preface to 1984 and a

reflected view of 1939."

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's something seriously wrong in the

communication between the Attorney-General and his department

and police officers in the Province of British Columbia, the

trade union association for police in this province other than

RCMP, for them to feel moved to attack Bill 2 in its present

form at this time. That's a very strong statement, and I think

it's essential that the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, not only

elaborates on the police

section of this bill for this House,

but also that he makes every effort at the earliest opportunity

to meet with the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers, and other

organizations who must be similarly concerned, to answer their

questions and settle their fears.

If he does not do that, then we're going to have a great deal of

difficulty as this moves through second reading and into committee

stage and finally, we can assume, becomes law. Again I have to say, as

a layman and on the surface, it appears that the bill could be open to

very serious abuse at some time in the future. That is not the kind of

legislation that we can support.

Since he touched on it too, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be

well for the House to reflect on the remarks made by the Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) last Tuesday

afternoon. He spoke at length but in part.... Just a few lines.

He said:

What concerns me, and I'd like the Attorney-General to

assure me that my concern is unfounded, is that we're seeing

drawn together in the hands of the provincial government a

control over police forces and prosecutors throughout this

province which, combined with the control the government

already functions in the appointment of judges in our

provincial court system, seems to me to establish a degree of

control at the provincial government level which might be

abused — not by the Attorney-General, I trust.

So we have a Member of this House — not present this

afternoon, unfortunately — we have a very responsible

organization and other individuals in the province who are

saying: "What's going on? What precisely is intended by Bill 2?

It looks great on paper, but what about in the implementation

stage?"

It's bad law, Mr. Speaker, unless the Attorney-General

answers some very specific questions and puts to rest some very

serious concerns that are presently at large in this

province.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Just some very

brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, if I may. The concerns which have

been expressed by some of us here today are perhaps a natural

consequence of the powers which are insufficiently spelled out

for the Legislature to be able to tell how they might be

used.

I'd like to suggest to the Attorney-General that there are

some ways that he could perhaps lessen that concern. One way

would relate, as I see it, to the composition of the commission

that the cabinet will be appointing on his recommendation. He

mentioned some of the persons that would be serving on the

commission.

I wonder if, when he is speaking further to close the debate

on second reading, he might advise the House whether he would

be giving consideration to appointing to this commission

persons from the legal profession, whether from the bar itself

or from the bench, civil rights representatives, perhaps, and

members of the general public, I would hope, in one capacity or

another, who would help to give an open appearance to the

commission.

Perhaps he might also describe and make it very

[ Page 1296 ]

clear to the Legislature whether or not the duties of this

commission will run in any way to executive action — to the

powers or the expectation that the commission might be

described as running the police forces or running the courts,

or whether their role would rather be, as appears to be the

major thrust of the Act, a role of research and development.

Will it just be recommendations, in other words?

I would ask him also if he might describe to the House

whether as a matter of practice the recommendations of the

commission will be made to the Legislature and to the public as

well as to the Minister. One of the specific duties of the

commission is to report from time to time to the Minister

respecting the results of its research, inquiries and

investigations and to make recommendations for change,

reorganization and general improvement of the administration of

justice.

I would suggest to the Minister through you, Mr. Speaker,

that if a pattern is established of public reports on the

recommendations of the commission — and I'd like to see it

stronger than a pattern; I'd like to see it a matter of law

that the conclusions of the commission should be a matter of

public record — I think that this would go far to dispel some

of the concern we see being expressed today, concern which is

natural because the powers that people are worrying about could

be read into the bill.

The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) mentioned

some of the research needs, areas that he hoped the commission

would go into. He mentioned parole in particular, and naturally

probation. I expect and hope that they would do that. I hope

also that they will inquire into such things as the operation

of prisons and correctional centres and better means of

rehabilitation than prisons and correctional centres — which I

know is a subject very much on the mind of the

Attorney-General.

I hope they'll be looking into what is called these days

white collar crime, securities, computer theft, which may or

may not be an important thing in British Columbia right now but

it is certainly coming in this direction. I'd like to know

whether the commission in its research might look into better

means of resolving the minor civil disputes between neighbours

that even with the small claims courts we have now can still be

very expensive and complex for the ordinary citizen.

I know in my own riding I looked a couple of weekends ago at a case

involving a tree, a tree which is dear to the heart of the owner. The

man behind him wants that tree cut down. Together it looks like they'll

be going to court sometime in the fall and spending $2,000 or $3,000

between them to try and resolve this dispute. They have no real

alternative now as long as they can't agree. If better ways can be

found by this development commission to settle that kind of simple,

ordinary, everyday thing that affects so many people, this would be a

marvelous step forward.

I know that there are experiments that have been tried in

other parts of the world that the commission could look at in

this context.

The commission might do research into the administrative

adequacy of consumer law which has gone some distance with

storefront lawyers and storefront consumer advisory personnel.

But it has yet to go a long way further before it is too

meaningful to the ordinary shopper and the senior citizen and

the people who really need the advice and the support of

consumer law.

I would hope as well that the commission would do research

into the need for an ombudsman, which Members of this party

have commended to the House for many years now, and which we

continue to believe is an important necessity for the British

Columbia legal system.

We were visited with a quotation from Schopenhauer, Mr.

Speaker, the other day, and I found an interesting quotation

for this debate from John Stuart Mill, saying:

"The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as

fellow

citizens, to impose their opinions and inclinations as a rule

of conduct on others is so energetically supported by some of the best

and worst feelings in human nature that it is

hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power.

As the power is not declining but growing, unless a stronger

barrier of moral conviction can be raised against the mischief,

we must expect in the present circumstances of the world to see

it increase."

That's a long way of saying that the more government gets

into all of our lives there's more temptation to interfere more

deeply and more arbitrarily than it ought to do. That is

precisely why we feel the strong need for an ombudsman and why

I express the hope that one of the terms of reference, formal

or informal, that the Attorney-General might give to his new

commission might be to report on the ombudsman concept for

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, to summarize what I have said, the two

essential factors, if this bill is to meet with a good

reception, seem to me to be, first of all, that the Justice

Development Commission should be non-operational. It should

clearly and distinctly not have the power, even implicitly,

even inferentially, of running the police forces of British

Columbia.

Interjection.

M R. GIBSON: I think I heard the Attorney-General say it

doesn't, but there's been this concern expressed here. We would like to

have that particular assurance.

[ Page 1297 ]

The second safeguard — not just a safeguard but a positive

benefit in the public dialogue — is a pattern of public

reporting and public disclosure of the conclusions, the results

and the recommendations arising out of its research.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in reverse order

I'd like to say something about the thoughtful speech of the

Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I seem

to have raised some merriment on that remark, Hon. Member. In

doing that, perhaps I'll answer some of the things as we go

along.

I recognize the importance of the separation of powers. The

Attorney-General and the Legislature are charged with the

administration of justice but not with the adjudication of

justice. I can say that 100 times but I want to make it very

clear that we should never step over that line. In one of the

companion bills — I think it's the Provincial Court

Amendment Act, 1974 — the Hon. Members may notice there is

an amendment on the order paper in my name to make it clear

that in no sense are we trespassing over that line. It was

suggested to us and we are glad to accede to that

suggestion.

This is the administration of justice. There cannot be any

interference by me or anybody elected as a politician with the

running of the courts as courts. Administration of the courts.

We have no option but to provide them and to provide them well

but we must not interfere with court decisions. We must not

interfere in any way with the independence of the judiciary

because that would be a road to tyranny which we certainly

don't intend to take. Perhaps it has been taken in other

jurisdictions at other times, but it is a road that is fraught

with danger and one we certainly intend to avoid.

In terms of public recommendations, I would hope the

recommendations of the Justice Development Commission would be

made public. I would hope there would be as much community

understanding, participation and consultation as at all

possible as we go along with these important reforms. Wherever

the interest is there with some segment of the public wanting

to know what we are doing, I want to make sure that the

recommendations and the actions are public and understood.

In regard to the third point as to what was said by the Hon. Member

for Saanich (Mr. Curtis), the Hon. Member read from the Federation of

Peace Officers' documents. You asked me why I haven't satisfied them

and what they get out of this document. I can't answer that; I think

they would have to answer that. I think they could have sought the

information. I have spoken to their banquet. I don't know whether it

was the last one for their annual meeting. My ideas on reform, perhaps

including this, have been explained. They have been consulted with

respect to the police Act.

I think they were precipitate, really, in getting out this

sheet which is based upon a false premise. For example, they

say "We understand the Administration of Justice Act is

to take precedence over the police Act. That is simply not

true. The Hon. Member speaks about the balloons going up and

that kind of thing. Let me say, if they go up on this kind of

misinformed basis, it will be bad for British Columbia and bad

for our citizens. I trust the Members of all parties in this

House will, of course with free and full debate, nevertheless

seek to allay irrational fears, particularly when they are

based simply upon a false premise.

MR. CURTIS: You really haven't explained it to them.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, all right. But should they not

come and see me? Really, I have had an open door. I can't

explain it to everybody but we have consulted widely. They've

been present at two full-day conferences. I don't want to go

into that any further. I'll be glad to see the Federation of

Peace Officers; I have got along well with them in the past.

I'll be glad to sit down and discuss their document, this bill

and any other bills. I should have an open door and I intend to

have it.

I can't say much more. The Hon. Member for North Peace River

(Mr. Smith) talks about centralized authority, the Energy

Act and how the Energy Act denies an appeal — which

it didn't — and all this kind of thing. That's the traditional

stance of the Social Credit Party with respect to what we are

trying to do in this province. They apply that argument no

matter what we do.

In this case at least, it's not only wrong but does not

apply because this is a transitional Act to plan, coordinate

and bring these improvements into the court system. It's

subject as much to the Legislature as it has been in past

years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can ask me in committee. This is a

vehicle to implement the reforms; it's transitional, it's

interim. Don't ask me what this body is going to be doing in

five years' time because it won't exist. I move second reading

of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Administration of Justice Act , read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 1298 ]

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of

Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is another little bill which simply

increases to the sum of $5,000 those little estates — it is a

small estate today — which can be administered without going to

a judge to obtain letters of probate or letters of

administration. They can be obtained more simply and without

that expense from the registrar. It's not really a new

principle because that was done heretofore (I think the limit

before was $2,000) and it is being increased.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, perhaps it should, but I move

second reading of this bill.

MR. SMITH: I'll be brief on this because we agree with the

principle of the bill. I think the main question in the mind of

anyone, including the Members of the government side of the

House, is: where did you obtain the arbitrary figure of $5,000?

Really, $5,000 is not an estate today, it's a pittance. While

it may be all the chattels and goods a person possesses, it

still is a very small amount. I would have thought the

Attorney-General, in presenting the bill which is relatively a

good suggestion, would have considered a figure higher than

$5,000. Certainly by today's standards it could be three or

four times that amount, in my opinion, without losing revenue

to the Crown. By the same token, it would set up a situation

where people would not have to go to the expense of getting

letters probate for the administration of the estate.

The amount, really, Mr. Attorney-General, is probably less

than the Attorney-General himself would like. I would hope that

he would consider amendments in committee stage of the

bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Once again I would like to rise, saying

we approve the principle of the bill. However, the question

raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) is

perfectly valid. We wonder, indeed, why his party didn't raise

it before.

Two thousand dollars is absurd and $5,000 is pretty close to absurd.

The fact is that a large chunk of every estate is used up in

administration — probate, lawyers' fees and the rest of it. It's far

too much. While I'm sure that all the paraphernalia and all the

procedure have some merit, there's great opportunity, I feel, for

perhaps the Law Reform Commission to look into the whole question and

work out something a great deal more simple and a great deal cheaper.

The amount taken away from estates, which are quite often the estates

of widows, of course, is too much.

I feel that it might well have been a much better idea to

raise the five figure to maybe 10 or even higher, but certainly

this is a minor step in the right direction and we will be

supporting it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in closing I may say that

the figures are in the Probate Fees Act and, I think,

the Succession Duty Act as to an estate where under no

circumstances would those returns have to be filed. However,

I'll take what the Hon. Members have suggested into

consideration, because I too believe that subject to the danger

of fraud, false applications, false relatives or false wills — you can't underestimate all of those things in an estate. I

believe that we should make it just as simple and inexpensive

and expeditious as possible.

I move the question on the motion.

Motion approved.

Bill 3, Administration Amendment Act, 1974 , read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that's

supported by such bodies as the Commissioners on Uniformity of

Legislation for the whole of Canada, by the Law Reform

Commission of the Province of Alberta where it has been enacted

into law, by our own Law Reform Commission...

AN HON. MEMBER: Explain it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'm trying to sell it first and

then explain it later.

Liability Act , and by Scotland where it has been enshrined

for some time — and there's the cognomen — Scottish

Occupiers' Liability Act of 1960. So it is

an Act with

unimpeachable ancestry and antecedents.

It would eliminate the confusing categorizing of people by

the common law when they come upon premises and they suffer

injury and seek redress or damages for that injury. If you come

on as a trespasser, your rights are so much; and if you come on

as an invitee, your rights are so much. This has led to

uncertainty in the law. It has made it difficult for people to

understand their position and the new

[ Page 1299 ]

reform in this field of the law envisages a Common duty of

care towards people who enter upon the property of another, and

the extent of liability of an occupier is governed by the

circumstances of the case.

I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: In our opinion this bill really codifies the

common law in this province so that it conforms with other

provinces in Canada. It is the type of housekeeping legislation

that we think is desirable.

We see it as an attempt to provide flexibility in what was

before an inflexible position with respect to common law in the

Province of British Columbia, and it's in line with the

recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, as the Hon.

Attorney-General has pointed out. We'll support the bill.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): The object of the

bill obviously, as the Attorney-General has stated, is to

relieve the courts of the many worries that they have had in

the past reaching decisions as to the special categories of

individuals on premises. It appears to establish, as the

Attorney-General has stated, the degree of reasonableness which

one finds in the common law of negligence. It's unfortunate

that once again we find the Crown immunity is here, and that

the Act doesn't apply to the Crown in right of the province. So

again we see the umbrella of big, socialistic government in

B.C. taking every protection it can, even under this modest

little statute, not prepared to subscribe itself to the same

laws as every other little citizen in the Province of B.C.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I sit down with tears in my

eyes, but apart from that we'll support the bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this little bill does say

that the Crown is bound, except in respect to roads and things

of that kind.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Doesn't it? "...the Crown and its agencies

are bound by this Act." Am I not right?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. So

section 8 refutes what has just

been said by the Hon. Member.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 4, Occupiers' Liability Act , read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, contracts are often

frustrated. The courts have a set of rules as to when a

contract runs into such a dilemma, and we're not seeking to

change those rules. Sometimes it's

an act of God, sometimes

it's a fire, sometimes it's a force majeure, but the working

out of what the parties have put into the situation after

frustration of the contract is something where the law falls

down at the present time. This bill simply allows a settlement

of claims to be worked out.

Up to this time — and I don't want to get too technical

about the thing — a person who was into a situation where a

contract was frustrated could recover if it was a total failure

of consideration. Partial failure; he couldn't. This enables

the court to work out accounts.

It's a bill which was introduced in 1972 into this

Legislature. It has since been examined by the Law Reform

Commission and again the Conference of Commissioners on

Uniformity of Legislation in Canada. I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: I agree that this bill follows the

recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of British

Columbia, and the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of

Legislation in Canada.

We agree with the principle of the bill in that it tries to

provide for settlement of contract in the event that external

influences over which neither party has control act to

frustrate a contract.

It is, in our opinion, a pruning Act, really, which takes

the unworkable parts of common law and adjusts them to the

actual present-day practices and

interpretations, and in that

respect it is the type of thing that we should be looking at

when we consider revision or updating of the statutes of the

Province of British Columbia. This is one of the reasons for

appointment of a Law Reform Commission — to review some of the

statutes that may have been with us for some time, where the

actual practice in common law today varies quite widely from

what might have been an acceptable practice 10, 15, or 20 years

ago.

It's a type of legislation which we think is now due in the

Province of British Columbia and we will accept and support the

principle of the bill.

MR. GARDOM: It's a fairly pedestrian but necessary measure,

Mr. Speaker, and we indeed support it. But I'd just ask the

Hon. Attorney-General one thing: does the Frustrated

Contracts Act apply to

[ Page 1300 ]

unhappy marriages? Or doesn't it go that far?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: One further question, Mr. Speaker, to the

Attorney-General. The Frustrated Contracts Act would

seem to me to apply to the contract presently in existence

between the Province of British Columbia and the Seattle City

Light on the Skagit Valley. If the decision is to be made that

this is not to be flooded, as a political decision at both

federal and provincial levels, it would appear to me that this

Act would apply. After all, the contract is in existence, dates

for many years and moneys have been received by the province

under the Act. Now we no longer wish to go ahead, and I think

that we could probably describe a political decision of both

levels of government as adequate reason for frustration. In

other words, it would be equivalent to force majeure.

I just wonder whether the Attorney-General in closing would

like to comment upon how successful we will be in using this

Act with respect to Skagit Valley.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In closing, may I say, as I have said

before, that we do not believe that there is a valid,

enforceable contract between the Province of British Columbia

and Seattle City Light with respect to the flooding of the

Skagit. Therefore the Act would not apply.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But if you're wrong....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This government is never wrong, Hon.

Member. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 5, Frustrated Contracts Act read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 6.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a major reform

in the Province of British Columbia, and that goes without

saying.

We seek to give the biggest corporation and the littlest

citizen their day in court whether or not government or private

industry is involved. Notwithstanding the hysterical shouts and

outcries that we hear out in the community and on some radio

programmes, this government has done more for the rights of the

individual in 18 months than Social Credit did in 20 years. The

very fact that the Social Credit Party will stand up today and support this

bill in principle which they for 20 years refused to bring

before the Legislature is evidence of what I am saying.

We seek to abolish in British Columbia a relic of the

mediaeval age when the King could do no wrong. The doctrine of

the fiat system where the subject had to go on bended knee to

seek from Ministers of the Crown the right to sue the Crown is

a relic of the time of the divine right of kings and should

have no

part in our modern jurisprudence. We are in this bill

correcting an age-long inequity. We are providing that there

shall be no special privilege in the eyes of the law accorded

to big government that is not accorded to the littlest citizen

or the biggest corporation.

Mr. Speaker, having said that I might deal with one or two

points arising out of it.

There's a very valid question, for example, as to whether or

not there should be trial by jury in cases under the Crown

Proceedings Ac t. It is nevertheless almost universal in

legislation reforming Crown procedure that there shall be no

jury trials in suits against the Crown. Now the fact that it is

not a precedent in Canada or elsewhere does not however end the

merits of the matter.

I would say that there is no danger in trial by jury, where

the people in effect would be trying themselves, that politics

could creep into the courtroom. If I could just repeat what I

just said, and try to remember what I said, and hope that I am

consistent in what I am saying, it is important I think that

the political composition of the jury should be something that

is of no concern to the lawyers either for a plaintiff or for

the defence. Because of our governmental system being founded

upon party politics, I think it would be a mistake, and an

unnecessary mistake, because redress can be had from a judge to

go the route of trial by jury.

In terms of injunctions, again, the bill that we have

presented follows the model bill of the Commissioners for

Uniformity of Legislation in Canada. We are not seeking to be

different in this respect from our sister provinces. And we do

insist that while the remedy of injunction in certain

circumstances is inappropriate in suits against the Crown, we

do say, however, that the court should be armed with the power

to give full redress to the subject in terms of damages or

compensation or such other relief which to the courts may seem

meet. But the remedy of injunction which, as I say, is not

featured in other legislation is not necessary or desirable in

our own.

Finally, I'd like to say, because Hon. Members opposite

often refer to sunshine, Mr. Speaker, that again this

government is letting the sunshine in. We are giving — and this

has been a contested point in the past — we are giving by way

of discovery of documents or evidence, the right of the subject

[ Page 1301 ]

litigation against the Crown to see the workings of

government, and to make sure that all of the evidence that is

relevant to his case is brought to the surface. And we give the

judge in court that power to order discovery, which again is a

protection of the rights of the individual. I move second

reading of this bill.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After that stirring

address by the Hon. Attorney-General I'm sure that all of us

will have to vote in support of the principle of this bill. But

I would say to start with that his

interpretation of the bill

as written and mine vary a little bit. I think he holds out

much higher hopes for this bill than he has any right to

do.

It's maybe a carrot-on-the-stick proposition, as far as the

Attorney-General is concerned, and he hopes it will appear to

be that way in the mind and the eye of the public. When you

read closely the provisions within this bill — and I know that

I can't refer to the specific

section without abusing the

privileges and rights in speaking to the principle of the bill

in second reading — we seem to have a vehicle which in the

minds of most individuals would provide them with the means of

suing the Crown. But unfortunately, in certain provisions

within this Act, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has removed

the wheels from the vehicle and the engine as well. And I don't

think that it's going to work nearly as well without the wheels

and the engine as he would like to suggest.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you going to support it?

MR. SMITH: I would like to suggest that in certain instances

the previous situation where a fiat must be obtained would be

perhaps preferable to some of the provisions within this Act

itself. Really, Mr. Attorney-General, when we get right down to

it, you can stand in your place and suggest that you have by

this bill let a little sunshine in. I'll stand in my place and

have to remind you that if you really wanted to provide a

proper vehicle for people, big or small, to sue the Crown and

correct this long-held assumption that the king can do no

wrong, then you could have gone much further than you've done

in this particular aspect.

While it's true you make provisions for people to launch a

suit against the Crown, you also provide a number of

restrictive covenants within the clauses of the Act which

prevent them from exercising that particular right which was

supposed to have been granted by the bill.

There's one thing that I would like the Attorney-General to comment

on specifically before he closes second reading on this bill and that

is: would he tell the Members of the opposition what litigation is

presently before the courts, or is pending, that this bill will affect?

If there's not, would he make that point abundantly clear? I would like

to know if there is any action presently pending or before the courts.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're under the old system until this

bill is proclaimed.

MR. SMITH: Yes, but will they be proceeded with under the

old Act, or will you allow them to sit there until this Act is

proclaimed? I think perhaps the Attorney-General should

enlighten us as to the number of cases and the involvement in

that respect before he closes second reading on this bill.

As I said when I first rose to my feet, in some respects it

would appear to us that there are less rights now than under

the old system of obtaining a fiat to sue the Crown. The bill,

while it grants rights to people, should not be taken by the

average public to mean wider rights, unrestrictive rights. As

we read the bill, while it's a step in the right direction,

certainly you have protected the Crown through many of the

clauses inserted in this bill so that the result may be more

frustration than letting sunshine in.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Speaker, if a case for plagiarism

would be authorized under the provisions of the new Act, I

think it would almost be an open-and-shut case.

We welcome the remarks of the Attorney-General, and had he

only introduced the similar bill that our party has been

introducing, together with using our speeches, we would have

had something that would have been a little more appropriate

for the people in the province.

There's no question of a doubt that the concept that the

Crown can do no wrong is something that should have perished

with the divine right of kings. It certainly does appear

demonstratively well-evidenced over the past few weeks in the

Province of British Columbia that your king is indeed a king

that can do a lot of wrong. So I think it's a very nice thing

that this measure has now been introduced.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What a terrible thing to say.

MR. GARDOM: A terrible thing to say, my foot. Apropos of

that, Mr. Attorney-General, I just wonder whether or not this

legislation will extend to the master-servant rule in the field

of law as to whether or not the government will be responsible

for the tortuous acts of its servants. For example, would the

Government of the Province of British Columbia be responsible

at law if, say, the Premier slandered somebody? Could a lawsuit

initiate against the province or would the Premier have to pay

for his own slander by himself? — an interesting aspect of

[ Page 1302 ]

this legislation which, so far, is not too well

explained.

We are pleased with the measure on the whole. But there are

some very important caveats, Mr. Speaker. It's definitely a

proclamation bill. Until proclaimed, the doors of the courts

are still slammed shut to any cases against the Crown; until

proclaimed, any earlier causes of action do not exist. Since

this is a new government, one would have thought, since they

are very interested in bringing in retroactive legislation when

it suits them, this legislation would have been retroactive to

the day this government took over power in the Province of

British Columbia. I recall there was one dismissed civil

servant who wished to bring an action against the Crown, and

the Attorney-General refused to grant a fiat. Well, I would

tend to think it would only be fair that this bill should cover

an individual such as that.

It is terribly unfortunate that jury trials are not

permitted, as the Attorney-General mentioned. Injunctions are

not permitted. It is not possible to have any orders for

recovery of land nor for any attachment proceedings. All of

these four items — jury trials, injunctions, orders for recovery

of land, and attachment proceedings — just boil down to the

declaratory statements of the court. If the court does make

such a declaratory statement, the only hope that a litigant can

have, which is indeed a faint hope, is that the government

would act compassionately.

So far as enforcement of the judgments of the courts are

concerned, the only one that can be enforced is a judgment for

money. Any of the other court remedies of enforcement are not

possible within the terminology in Bill 6.

Crown corporations are still, on the whole, largely

protected. The statute itself, as the earlier speaker

mentioned, is subject to all the defences to the Crown in any

other statute. So this is not an overall Crown proceedings Act

at all; it is a very restrictive Crown proceedings Act. It is

restrictive to certain kinds of proceedings and restrictive as

to remedy.

Rights against the Crown, I think, in the Province of

British Columbia, notwithstanding this measure today which we

are going to support, are still going to be the exception

rather than the rule.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, for a

moment there I thought the Attorney-General was going to break

his back with self-congratulation over bringing in this

particular bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: As I recall, it was first introduced in this

Legislature by the late Mr. Justice Gregory in the late

1950s.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thought the Liberals were non-partisan.

MR. McGEER: It was then introduced on a regular basis by Mr.

Justice McFarland and Mr. Justice McKay. And once or twice the

Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Hon. Mr. Dowding) got the bill

introduced before the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom).

I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that this would have been

the very first thing the new Attorney-General would have

introduced upon taking office. I would have thought that. He

has waited about 18 months, and in the interim dismissed a

civil servant and denied that man his opportunity to bring suit

against the Crown. It doesn't speak terribly well for the

motivation of that Attorney-General and the government.

We notice as well that the bill follows the form for uniform

legislation in Canada. I presume the Attorney-General would

have pretty well been forced to bring this bill in, regardless

of whether he was in favour of it or against it, merely to keep

British Columbia up with the rest of the nation. We all know in

matters of human rights that British Columbia has been the

laggard in all of Canada, and still continues in most respects

to be behind the other provinces. You've got a long way to go,

Mr. Attorney-General, and your own record in office is not an

unblemished one.

I don't quite understand one of the sections of the Act. I

know we mustn't discuss

section 14, but it looks to me in this

particular

section as if the Crown corporations of the

province, and indeed the Crown itself, will plan to take

advantage of a lot of oddments lying around on our legislative

books that might work to the advantage of the Crown in

defending itself against a legitimate suit brought by an

aggrieved individual or corporation.

So, Mr. Attorney-General, this particular bill wipes out an

absolutely shameful blot on our legislative record which is a

holdover from Social Credit. It was done with a good deal of

pompous self-satisfaction. I think it would have been gracious,

Mr. Speaker, to mention some of the very fine former

legislators who, in the opposition side, brought this bill

forward as a regular procedure and helped to coach the present

government in responsibilities for office should they take

over, which they did.

HON. MR. BARRETT: John Hart — he was a Liberal.

MR. McGEER: And, Mr. Speaker, at the same time I think the

government needs to examine its conscience just a little bit

since it took office and perhaps consider, during the committee

stage, bringing in amendments to this legislation to give those

people who have been aggrieved in the past an

[ Page 1303 ]

opportunity to have their day in court similar to those who

will be aggrieved in the future.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, more can be said in

committee and I ask the question be put.

Motion approved.

Bill 6, Crown Proceedings Act , read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr.

Speaker.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There are a number of provisions, none

of them of any consequence in terms of controversies, to this

bill, which is sought by the legal profession and approved of

by the Attorney-General. I think questions might more

appropriately be answered during committee.

I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: I agree with the Attorney-General that we can

probably discuss this bill more profitably in committee than we

can in second reading.

MR. GARDOM: Yup. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The question.

Motion approved.

Bill 33, Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974 , read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 43, Mr.

Speaker.

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is really a follow-up

bill to the debate we have had. In the assumption by the

province of the responsibility for the delivery of legal

services to the people of the province, one of the matters

which requires reform attention and assumption of

responsibilities by the province is, of course, the coroners'

court. This Act would have the effect of enabling the courts of

the province to proceed accordingly.

Jurors are paid for the first time since in 1973 we made

that change, if the date is correct. They receive the same as a

juror in a supreme court trial: $10 a day.

I move second reading.

MR. GARDOM: Just in support of the matter, there is one

point I would like to reiterate, and I've stressed this in the

House before. I think everybody appreciates the fact, Mr.

Speaker, that jury duty is one of the responsibilities of

citizenship. But it certainly does become backbreaking

economically in many cases. The figure of $10 is totally

incommensurate with today's standards, and the government

should give immediate attention to raising it.

We don't have to have a protracted debate about that. I

believe the Law Society recommended $25 a day. I might be

incorrect in that but that's my general recollection. Certainly

the figure of $10 is not commensurate with today's costs.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Question on the motion that Bill 43 be

read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 43, Coroners Amendment Act, 1974 , read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 44.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, again, this bill is

ancillary to the programme of the government to assume the

responsibility for the administration of justice in the

province. It speaks for itself. There will be questions, no

doubt, under the clauses, perhaps with respect to costs or

other matters, which I will be glad to respond to in committee,

but I think we've had the debate. I move second reading of this

ancillary legislation.

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 , read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 45.

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This little bill has the effect Of

repealing, but repealing I think in a phased way, the

Professional Corporations Act, which was passed by the

Legislature three or four years ago, if my memory serves me

correctly.

[ Page 1304 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: No, 1970.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: 1970? It became really a dead letter,

because frankly the income tax advantages sought by those

professionals who wished to incorporate under its umbrella

proved to be illusory, as a result of the attitude of the

federal government. Therefore the bill is standing upon the

statute books of the Province of B.C. really without purpose

and should be removed. If at any time there should be another

look taken at this kind of situation, then it should be by

fresh legislation at that time. I would move second

reading.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Attorney-General

that because of the provisions of the Income Tax Act at

the present time this is an obsolete bill on the books of the

statutes of the province. It has no practical purpose for being

there now, and we'll support second reading.

MR. GARDOM: My recollection of this is not the same as the

Attorney-General's, and I would commend him to look at one

aspect of it for the reasons that I'm going to suggest.

I recall that the former administration introduced this

legislation. Then, I believe, they brought in an

order-in-council to the net effect that it rendered the bill

inoperative. The net effect is that the individuals — and I

don't think there are too many — who took the necessary steps

to incorporate really have got absolutely nothing of value for

their expenditures. There couldn't be too many people involved

in the Province of B.C.; I bet it's well under 100. I think it

would be a very fair thing to remit to any person who has

incorporated under this Act any fees that were paid to the

registrar of companies for incorporation.

I think I'm getting some sort of a message that that's going

to be done. Is that being done?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, okay. If that's the situation, and there is

going to be a remission of fees, I would be totally in accord

with the thing, save and except....

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM:

Section 27 (3)? Well, that's fine and dandy.

Just one other thing, Mr. Attorney-General. Would a

professional corporation, incorporated under this statute, be

able to convert? I assume it would, under the provisions of the

Companies Act.

Well, there's a lot of shoulder shrugging over there, but I tend to

think that if somebody did incorporate under this statute, which is no

longer useful at all, that individual could have it made available to

him to be able to convert to another company under the Companies Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that if

somebody wanted a personal holding company or something of that

kind they might be able to so amend the articles and the

objects of this as to have that, but I think they might be

better to start afresh.

Question on the motion for second reading of Bill 45.

Motion approved.

Bill 45, Professional Corporations Amendment Act,

1974 , read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 49, Mr.

Speaker.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I

move second reading of this bill. It is modeled upon the

recommendations, of course, of the Hon. Mr. Justice Berger, who

in addition to carrying on his court duties — because he has

continued to try cases — accepted the commission from this

government to look at the family court and the juvenile court

set-up of this province on an urgent priority, crash basis. I

say "urgent" because the kind of family and juvenile situation

that we have is a festering ground where family breakdown leads

to juvenile crime, and juvenile crime in the course of the

years escalates to a very serious crime problem in this

province.

One of the Hon. Members referred to a case in the Vancouver

court the other day. It's a case that has been very much in my

mind, and I'll just mention it. This boy from the age of eight

was in some kind of reform school or jail until the age of 26,

which he is at the present time, with only two-and-a-half of

that span of years outside of custody. On release, he was

picked up, accused and, in fact, convicted of a particularly

gruesome murder.

Now, is it not possible that we in this Legislature, with

the resources at our command, and the people who are willing to

lend their help, cannot prevent children — and I use the word

"children" right down to the age of eight, but higher too — from

embarking upon that kind of a lost life, with all it

entails? I think it was the Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands (Mr. Curtis), but I may be wrong, who brought up that

particular case. It's very much in point.

[ Page 1305 ]

Now, this is a commission — the family court commission — with a

difference, as I've said, and I don't need to repeat it

here. Not only is this commission studying family law, and not

only have they committed themselves to bring in their

recommendations within a year, but in the course of their work

as commissioners in studying family law, they want the power,

and we want them to have the power, to establish the pilot

project for a unified family court. They have proposed the

South Fraser Judicial District and they have prepared under

this bill to proceed with a unified family court with family

counselors, with the probation and welfare officials and

officers attached to that court which will make that court a

first in Canada, and something I would hope that the

Legislature and the people can monitor, but something of which

they can be proud, because in this field and with this kind of

speedy action, Mr. Speaker, it is my conviction that British

Columbia has stepped out ahead of the rest of Canada. I move

second reading.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of points which

will be more appropriately dealt with in committee on this

bill. We would like to raise them at that time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to say a few words on this

bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't filibuster my legislation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few

comments.

This bill has a historic context to it that I think the

House should be reminded of. In the post-war years, up until

the early '50s, British Columbia led in North America in

pioneering legislation dealing with family court matters and

especially with child welfare service. At one time we had in

employment of this province one Ruby Mackay, unfortunately

dismissed by a former administration, who was the pioneer along

with James Sadler, who is still on our staff, along with a

number of other people who have served this province faithfully

in providing leadership in this particular area. I think that

with this bill we're going to set the atmosphere for us to

allow the province to regain the status it had under the

coalition administration in leading in this field in North

America. I just want to say that this day, for me personally,

is a good day in that we are stepping into leadership in North

America in this particular field with this bill — a leadership

we once had but lost since the early '50s.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved.

Bill 49, Unified Family Court Act , read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 66, Mr.

Speaker.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a little penny

larceny, because it's true that the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) raised this subject two or

three sessions ago in this Legislature, and it was a subject

that commended itself to me as being something that was right

and equitable to be done. As a result, we referred the matter

to the Law Reform Commission and they brought in their report,

and the result is this little bill.

I think Hon. Members appreciate the principle, and I don't

need to expound it at any length, but it means simply that a

plaintiff who has X dollars in damages, which should be his

redress, loses the interest on that amount from the time of his

injury until it comes to trial or until it goes on to appeal.

So really what he's receiving by way of his redress is that X

amount of dollars minus the interest. In the meantime, somebody

else has had the interest. It may be ICBC, or it may be some

big corporation, or it may be a large retail store where the

person had a fall or an injury of some kind. It could be any

kind of an institution of that kind or it could be an ordinary

defendant, just an individual.

As long as the old system prevailed, there was an incentive

on the part of defendants to string the thing out, because

until that final judgment day, they had interest-free money, at

least until the judgment at the date of trial. Even then at the

date of trial, the amount that was awarded on a judgment would

be that of the Interest Act of Canada, which is still 5

per cent, unless I'm mistaken. So again there was an interest

incentive for somebody to carry the case forward to the Supreme

Court of Canada, and two years later have some interest

advantage, even though they finally lost the case.

I would move second reading of this bill.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): This is a

good move. I'm sorry that the obligation to pay interest is

mandatory.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't think so.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS:

Section 1: "...shall add on to a

pecuniary judgment...."

It occurs to me that there are many instances

[ Page 1306 ]

where it is appropriate for the court to award a judgment

with interest, and the cases that the Attorney-General mentions

are well-documented — cases involving disputes over a person's

pension rights, and so on, which go on for many, many months,

and sometimes years after the right to pension arises,

particularly in the case of a deceased workman. There's no

reason why the beneficiary — the widow or children of the

deceased — should not have interest when the judgment is

finally brought down.

But there are instances, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure the

Attorney-General will appreciate the fact, when it is no fault

of the defendants at all that there has been delay in the

proceedings before the court. It seems to me that the court, in

its wisdom, could determine those matters at the time of the

hearing as to whether or not there has been any untoward delay.

I'm thinking of cases involving personal injuries, when counsel

for the injured party would well advise the injured party that

they should not proceed to trial until a static situation has

arisen with respect to recovery from those injuries, in order

that evidence as to the exact nature of the injury, possible

handicaps or permanent disability could be determined.

Therefore you have these situations where there is no delay

necessarily on the part of the person who may be called upon to

make the payment in the final instance. I think that the judges

of our courts, if they're wise enough to make a decision as to

right and wrong and the amount of the judgment itself, must

also be wise enough to determine the time when it would be

reasonable to expect that such a proceeding might be brought to

trial, taking all those matters into consideration, to make

some order which would properly compensate any judgment

creditor in respect of interest without placing a burden upon

the judgment debtor for what that judgment debtor was not

really responsible.

I appreciate that it would require the exercise of equitable

jurisdiction of the part of the judge in making that decision,

but after all, they're called upon to make similar decisions

each day. I think they could be counted upon to treat the

matter fairly in that respect.

I hope the Attorney-General would take that into

consideration and perhaps we could have some discussion about

that before the time when amendments disappear.

MR. GARDOM: It is very warming to see the introduction of

this measure today — the Prejudgment Interest Act — and also the family

forum concept and the right to sue the Crown. They are all matters

which have been raised here over the years. I'm happy that they've come

in, and I indeed commend the government. I hope that this is a sign of

government action, and that in the fall we can look forward to seeing

an auditor-general and an ombudsman and fair expropriation laws.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Then what would you run on?

MR. SMITH: This bill is one we will support. We have heard

arguments both for and against awarding interest as part of a

judgment. I certainly followed the remarks of the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) when he spoke

just a few minutes before me, but I would suspect, without

really knowing the statistics, that more people have been

grievously affected by not being able to receive interest than

the other way around. I would hope that the Attorney-General in

the implementation and operation of this particular statute

would watch closely the situation to see if we are, in actual

fact, setting up a precedent that we would not want to

continue.

I do think that quite often there is a tendency, for one

reason for another, to spin out an action before the court,

particularly when the defendant knows that when the judgment is

handed down there will not be an additional fee for interest

involved. So it's to his advantage, if he feels a conviction

might be the result of the judge's decision, to delay

proceedings. Quite often, frankly, this does have the effect of

putting financial stress on persons who should not be put in

that position.

We'll support second reading of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: I just have a couple of questions I'd like to

ask the Attorney-General, if I could. Does this bill — the

mandatory levying of an interest charge — apply in judgments

under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act in

estates?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it wouldn't.

MRS. JORDAN: It doesn't apply. That answers my first

question.

If I understand the bill correctly there is interest payable

by the party causing the injury and from whom the award is

made, and your reason for it is on the basis of undue delay

towards paying damages. My second question is: is there any

recourse or the need for recourse if, in fact, the delay in

court proceedings is caused through action of the lawyer? Does

the defendant then have an opportunity to take action against

his lawyer without going to court for these interest

payments?

I don't mean this facetiously and I don't mean it unkindly,

but we do know that frequently this happens. If the defendant

is going to be levied the interest charge, should there not

also be the opportunity for that defendant to go before an impartial

board if, in fact, they felt they had suitable evidence that

the lawyer had been delaying the

[ Page 1307 ]

action, perhaps not intentionally but through his own

workload, through holidays, through other business commitments

which mean it wouldn't be possible for him to appear in court,

when in fact it was convenient for the defendant?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we'll consider the point

raised by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams). I'm not saying that I'm sold on it, but that's

something to be considered. It may be that the words

"appropriate in the circumstances" and appropriate rate do not

give sufficient leeway to the learned judge trying the case,

but we will have a look at that.

In answer to the final thing, I would hope that litigants

who feel that their lawyer is unduly delaying their case,

whether it is plaintiff or defendant, would get in the habit of

writing to the Law Society if they really feel that they are

being badly done by, because there is a shortage....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They don't. Then we should publicize

that they do have an avenue — I wouldn't say of complaint, but

also of inquiry — so that the Law Society can write to the

lawyer and say that the client would like an explanation of the

length of time this suit is taking. There is nothing wrong with

the client so inquiring, whether or not interest is involved. I

move second reading of Bill 66.

Motion approved.

Bill 66, Prejudgment Interest Act , read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Special Funds Appropriation Act,

1974 sets out the proposed uses of $140 million of surplus

revenue: $40 million more for the issue of first and second

mortgages under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and

$10 million more to encourage the building of recreational

facilities under the Community Recreational Facilities Fund

Act . This is a very popular programme, and the original $10

million was very quickly spent. An additional sum of $5.5

million was added by warrant this year, and now another $10

million is to be provided. I understand even Oak Bay is going

to take advantage of this. I hope too that Columbia River is

making a move.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Very nice suit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It fits me, for the first time.

(Laughter.)

There is $5 million each for the British Columbia Cultural

Fund and the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund to assist

the activities sponsored under those Acts. Hon. Members will

recall that the interest earned from these funds is used for

the activities. The funds are invested in bonds, schools and

hospitals. There is $10 million each to establish funds to

provide financial requirements under the Farm Income

Assurance Act and the Farm Products Industry Improvement

Act to strengthen and safeguard our agricultural

capacity.

This is in response to those critics who felt that under

Bill 42, the Land Commission Act , we would not be moving

to assist the farmers of this province. Mr. Speaker, this is

tangible evidence of the intention of this government to ensure

that the little people, the farmers of this province, get a

break no matter what kind of pressures we get from those big,

multi-national, vertical-integrated farm corporations that are

trying to squeeze out the little entrepreneur in this

province.

MRS. JORDAN: Otherwise known as the government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And if I may tuck my thumbs in, I may do a

little reminiscing for others who know what I am talking about.

(Laughter.)

There is $50 million to embark on a programme to carry out

our stated policy to remove school tax from homes and farms

over a five-year period.

In the first year 20 per cent of the school tax levied on

homes and farms above the minimum amount of the homeowner grant

to a minimum of $30 and a maximum of $40 will be paid from this

fund.

My friends, where there is no school tax payable of less

than $30.... You couldn't run a peanut stand over there. Isn't

that reminiscent? (Laughter.)

Where there is no school tax payable or less than $30 school

tax payable after deduction of the provincial homeowner grant,

this bill proposes a resource grant of such amounts as are

necessary to increase the amount payable to $30. In other

words, the bill proposes to give the one-resident owner of each

home in the Province a grant of between $30 and $40, the amount

over $30 being dependent on the amount of school taxes

payable.

There is only one thing wrong as I proceed with this bill,

Mr. Speaker. The timing should be 10 minutes to six with hushed

lights. There is $35 million to the Ferries Capital Expenditure

Fund to provide for construction and additions to the ferry

[ Page 1308 ]

fleet, the terminals and the wharves, Mr. Speaker.

There is $10 million for a fund to be used to plan and start

construction of the B.C. Medical Centre in Vancouver.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill, not inspired by Bill

Clancy, is the setting aside of $140 million from surplus

revenues for these special purpose programmes. I now move

second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): While we

approve of the principle of special funds and the fact that it

would guarantee some continuity for the projects they set forth

to fund, we are concerned about two or three items in here.

One thing I am concerned about is the $40 million that is

set out for housing. We are concerned because we had the

announcement from the Housing Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) that

he is going to bring in amendments to the Housing Act . We feel,

when you are appropriating $40 million to this fund, that the

amendment should be discussed at the same time as the money is

being allotted.

We feel, Mr. Premier, that the amendment should be before us

when you talk about bringing $40 million forth to that fund.

Right now we are asked to vote $40 million to a fund but we are

told that the direction of the fund is going to change. We feel

that they should be discussed in conference.

We also notice that the way the money can be invested will

be under the terms of the Revenue Act and, of course, we

have some concern about the advice that the Minister of Finance

gets when he invests these funds.

Other than the fact that we feel the amendments to the

housing Act should be brought in as we discuss this, we will be

discussing the sections in committee.

MR. McGEER: This particular bill is one of the end results

of phony budgeting. I think British Columbia is probably the

only province in Canada that consistently brings down a

deliberately false budget. Mr. Speaker, it's perfectly true.

Every year. Every year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask the Member to withdraw that

statement,"deliberately false." It's an attack