1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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, JUNE 21, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8321 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 8321

Mr. Barrett

Industrial and commercial property taxes for schools. Mr. Lauk –– 8322

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. King –– 8322

Committee on Crown Corporations. Mr. Kempf replies –– 8323

Ministerial statement re forest fire hazard.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 8323

Mr. King –– 8324

Land Amendment Act (Bill 54). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

section 3 –– 8324

Mr. Hanson

section 4 –– 8325

Mr. Hanson

section 5 –– 8325

Mr. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. Howard

section 7 –– 8330

Mr. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Williams

section 12 –– 8331

Mr. Hanson

Third reading –– 8331

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

On vote 10: minister's office –– 8331

Hon. Mr. Williams

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Levi

Ms. Brown

Motion expressing congratulations to the Prince and Princess of Wales.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 8345

Presenting Petitions

Vancouver Stock Exchange amendment act.

Mr. Ree –– 8345

Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953, Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill PR401) Mr. Ree

Introduction and first reading –– 8345

Appendix –– 8345

MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would

like the House to welcome two guests today. One is Mrs. Isabel Rhodes,

the wife of a very good friend of mine. Accompanying Mrs. Rhodes is a

visitor from Aberdeen, Scotland, Ms. Martha Watson. I'd ask the House

to welcome them.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance in the

absence of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips). Japanese steel mills that will take delivery of

coal from the Quintette Mine have demanded effective management control

over the project despite the fact that the majority equity position is

held by Denison Mines. Will the minister give his personal assurance to

the House that the Quintette project will not be allowed to fall under

the control of the minority Japanese shareholders, who would be able to

determine decisions, for example, on revenue coming to this province if

they had control over price?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the question is whether the decision has already been made, then it is in order.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development is absent from the city and from this House for a very

short time, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. LEGGATT:

Given the fact that he's taken the question as notice, I wonder if the

minister could advise the House whether he is aware of the most recent

development in northeast coal concerning the attempt by the Japanese

steel industry to obtain control in regard to price?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of news reports which deal with that subject.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Finance. The

Japanese steel mills have further demanded that they will not be

responsible for the expected overruns in the Quintette project and that

the base sale price will not be allowed to increase. Would the minister

explain to the House how British Columbians will be able to obtain a

fair price for their resources if that price is controlled by foreign

customers?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there is a

premise in the question which may or may not be correct. I indicated

that the minister responsible for northeast coal will be here in a

matter of a day or two. I therefore take that question as notice.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. With respect to the

northeast coal development, has the Premier been advised of the

conditions that are now being stipulated by the Japanese customers? Has

he been advised whether those conditions are acceptable to Denision

Mines?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I'll try the Premier again. I am sure one of the two of

you must know something about this. Can the Premier give his assurance

that the government of British Columbia will not countenance changes in

the coal deal that will penalize future generations of British

Columbians by locking them into a losing proposition with the Japanese

buyers controlling the price of the B.C. resource? In other words, if

the proposal presently before Denison Mines goes through, we will have

Japanese ownership at both ends dictating the price. The Japanese

buyers will be telling you, Mr. Premier, what the price of B.C.

resources is going to be.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, they won't.

MR. LEGGATT: Will the Premier give his assurance that the government will not countenance these changes in a coal deal?

MR. SPEAKER:

The member is asking for a future action of the government. If the

question is, "Has the decision been made?" the question is in order.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the government has already guaranteed that the people of

British Columbia are better protected on the development of the

northern transportation system and the northeast development than at

any other time on any major industrial expansion. The member has only

to see that the government of British Columbia.... Instead of just the

single coal royalty that applied when the New Democratic Party was

government, we now have that original royalty, we have a 20 percent

mining tax on profits, we have two special royalties on every tonne of

coal out of the northeast — one deals with recovery on the rail line

and the other with infrastructure. This has never been done before,

neither in the expansion of the railway nor in the recovery of costs

not normally recovered from consolidated revenue, such as highway

costs. All of those charges added onto northeast coal are substantially

greater, as anyone can see, than the charges against southeast coal

when the New Democratic Party was government.

MR. LEGGATT:

At no time do I recall the previous government agreeing that someone

who only holds 30 percent in a project would have 50 percent rights in

that project. That's the proposition the Premier has to face.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is question period, not debate period.

MR. LEGGATT:

The question is this: does the Premier approve of a proposal wherein

Japanese interests, which control only 30 percent in the Quintette

project, will now be given the rights of majority shareholders in that

project? Does he approve of that proposition?

[ Page 8322 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

First of all, I don't have that information. There are newspaper

reports. As I said in response to your first question, the answer was

no. The coal companies are private capital. If the NDP were government,

I'm sure they would try to make it a public enterprise. Mr. Speaker, as

you well know, if they were, in government and continued as they did

between 1972 and 1975, not only would we not have that project but we

would not have had many other job-creating projects that have taken

place in this province during the past few years.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I didn't shout from my seat, as the member for

Coquitlam-Moody is doing. Perhaps that is customary practice he brought

from Ottawa, but here in the sedate B.C. Legislature we don't conduct

ourselves in that manner.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please. We have two questioners on their feet. The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the Premier to please explain to the people of

British Columbia the government's policy, as stated when the CPR made a

bid to buy MacMillan Bloedel, that British Columbia is not for sale.

Can he explain why that admonition does not apply to Tokyo or the

Japanese?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to

explain to the Leader of the Opposition and the New Democratic Party

exactly what is so sensitive about the forest industry. We can see that

trees, allowable cut, our major industry, is so important to British

Columbia that we couldn't have it consolidated into just a few hands.

There were no guidelines, no policy, until we became government.

MR. BARRETT: There's still no policy.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The reason the New Democratic Party didn't need any policy guidance is

that when they were government nobody wanted to come to British

Columbia. Many didn't want to stay, and left.

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL

PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS

MR. LAUK: Let's start from the beginning: did you have your seatbelts on?

the Minister of Education, this year the provincial government, through

legislation and secret cabinet orders, has confiscated industrial and

commercial property taxes for schools. The industrial and commercial

taxpayers now are asked to pay huge increases all over the lower

mainland and elsewhere. This particularly affects small businesses and

is becoming apparent in the municipalities. Has the minister decided on

any form of emergency reduction or rollback of these provincial taxes

on industrial and commercial property?

HON. MR. SMITH:

As the member opposite knows, the provincial mill rate this year for

non-residential taxpayers was reduced, in a number of school districts,

to a mean of 55 mills. That was a very substantial reduction in places

like Surrey, where the mill rate had risen over 60 mills. In the case

of all other school districts, where the mill rate had previously been

below 55 mills, the non-residential mill rate was frozen. So there was

a considerable measure of relief built into the program. Where

increases had been felt this year because of increased assessments,

there is also the pledge of the government to make further mill-rate

reductions next year to bring about relief on school taxes.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, we must be living in a different world. I'll put this

question again to the Minister of Education. All over British Columbia

ordinary small businessmen and merchants are having up to 600 and 800

percent tax increases. Is the Minister of Education blind or is he just

stupid? Do you know what's happening to these ordinary people?

MR. SPEAKER: As in debate, inflammatory language is not recommended in question period. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK:

Okay, I'll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. I'll ask the Minister of

Education: are these people imagining that they're paying 600 percent

increases on their industrial and commercial property taxes? Or is the

minister deliberately, with the government, trying to hoodwink these

people — as they have?

MR. SPEAKER: "Deliberately

hoodwinking" is dangerously close to unparliamentary language, and I

would recommend that we avoid that phrase if at all possible.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the moderate, non-rhetorical

followup question. Surely the member knows that the responsibility for

property taxation is a mixed responsibility — that is, a responsibility

that rests with local government as well as with the provincial

government. Also, surely the member knows that many people in this

province appealed property tax assessments. I doubt that the figure he

cites of 600 percent increases can be sustained. In many school

districts I have heard from there have been taxation reductions. There

have also been increases because of assessments, but the government is

committed to gradually lowering the mill rate for commercial

assessments for school purposes, and that is the course that we have

embarked on.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. KING: I have a

question for the Minister of Labour. In the ongoing saga of the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) show,

"Guess Who Came to Dinner," can the minister advise the House when he

became aware he had been claimed as a guest at a dinner, which he did

not attend, with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and

when did he notify his colleague that he had not attended that dinner

with him?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I heard around noon that that particular subject was, I thought, adequately

[ Page 8323 ]

canvassed

at the Public Accounts meeting this morning. I thought that all the

information which the member was asking for was given to him.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, matters which take place in committees, of course, the

House is not aware of, unless they report it through the Chairman of

that committee.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I did not refer to the public accounts committee. I hope Mr.

Speaker was not inferring that the question was out of order in any

way. If the minister chooses not to answer, that's on his conscience.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond to a question taken on notice.

Leave granted.

COMMITTEE ON CROWN CORPORATIONS

MR. KEMPF:

On Thursday last the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) asked a question that I took on notice. I rise to

respond to that question.

On perusing the minutes of the

Crown corporations committee meetings, I find that three evening

working dinner meetings were held since May 1979: two at the Laurel

Point Inn and one at the Empress Hotel. On each of these occasions,

wine was served prior to the meal with approval of the members. Another

such meeting will be held tomorrow night at the Harbour Towers, and

again I will poll the members of the committee to see if it is their

wish to have wine served. I would hope that that response would be

positive. I hope that members of the Committee on Crown Corporations,

when working late and long hours, particularly after dinner, as

politicians often do on behalf of their constituents, would feel that

we are no different than anyone else in society and that our business

should be conducted in the same manner as that of our citizens.

feel that there is nothing wrong with serving wine at dinner, whether

paid for by the taxpayers or not. If that is done within the scope of

our responsibility as elected representatives, there's absolutely

nothing wrong with it. I believe that as politicians, particularly in

this chamber, we tend often to fall on our own swords. I, for one, will

not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I think that the scope of the question has been....

MR. KEMPF:

I intend to conclude by saying that wine was served at working-dinner

meetings of the Committee on Crown Corporations, with consent of the

members, and as far as I'm concerned that will continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I sincerely hope, hon. members, that those matters which occur in committee will remain in committee.

MR. BARRETT: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT:

I would like to introduce to the House the good news that the Prince

and Princess of Wales have been delivered of a son today, and I would

hope that the House — and particularly Reverend Jim Robertson, whose

prayers were answered immediately — would express its appreciation and

good wishes.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I, too, would like to

join in the good wishes that the Assembly, I hope, will send to the

Prince and Princess Diana. They have our continuing good wishes and the

loyalty of the people of British Columbia.

FOREST FIRE HAZARD

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd like to make a ministerial statement, please.

I'd

just like to bring to the attention of all British Columbians the

seriousness of the forest fire threat that now faces this province as a

result of the continuing hot and dry weather.

Since the

current fire season began, over 40,000 hectares of forest land have

been burned over; in the last five days, 33,000 hectares have caught

fire. At this time last year only 600 hectares had been burned; as of

yesterday 920 fires had been reported in the province, compared to 233

at the same point last year. The fire danger stands at high to extreme

over most parts of the province. Yesterday there were 328 fires burning

in the province, and more than one-third of them were in the Prince

George forest region. There were 18 fires burning, uncontained, in the

following regions: Prince George, Prince Rupert, Cariboo and Vancouver.

The largest fire, more than 20,000 hectares, is near the Yukon border.

Our

fire suppression costs are currently running over $500,000 a day. It

seems to be shaping up for a long, hot summer in the forests of British

Columbia. It's great weather perhaps for tourists, but bad weather for

those who have a responsibility to protect our most valuable resource.

Therefore I am appealing to everyone in this province to act

responsibly when travelling through the forest areas in the summer. I

ask every British Columbian and every visitor to be super-careful, to

follow strictly all fire regulations and to help us keep watch over the

forest.

My most serious concern, and the reason for my

making this statement, is that it is not only the hot, dry weather that

is causing problems. I regret that I must report a dramatic increase in

the number of fires that are deliberately set. Every forest fire season

brings a small scattering of incendiary fires. At last count we had 147

such fires this year, and the summer has barely begun. This is far more

than normal and a very worrisome situation. The reason for the increase

in incendiary fires is not altogether clear: some are perhaps being set

to provide employment, and some appear to be set maliciously. Whatever

the reason I am determined that it will be stopped; arson is a crime,

whether it occurs in the city or in the forest. I have instructed my

Ministry of Forests personnel to step up their vigilance, and to work

very closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in cases where

there is evidence on incendiarism. Anyone who burns a forest is

deliberately destroying a part of the future of this province. There

are jobs as well as trees going up in flames, and this must be stopped.

While

I am on my feet, I would like to take this opportunity to express my

thanks, and I'm sure the thanks of everyone in this House, for the

splendid work being done by fire-suppression crews around the province.

Protecting the forests can be a dirty and, at times, dangerous job. In

recent

[ Page

8324 ]

years

we have greatly refined our methods of spotting and fighting fires, but

in the final analysis we rely on the men and women on the fire lines.

They stand as our first line of defence for British Columbia's forests,

and I would like to pay tribute to all those involved in the annual

battle to save our forests from fire, but most particularly to those

who wield the shovels and carry their backpacks and hoses. To them from

me, and I'm sure from all of us, thank you for your courage, your

dedication, and your hard work.

MR. KING: Certainly I

and my colleagues wish to identify with the remarks the minister has

made with respect to any criminal intention to involve people in

incendiary fires. That certainly is unacceptable. I suppose there is a

sad commentary inherent in what the minister says, harkening back to

the dark depression days when intentional fires were set to generate

employment. The practice was not very sensible then and it is not very

sensible now; indeed, it's a criminal offence. Nevertheless, it could

be a measure of the desperation that thousands of unemployed people are

feeling in the province of British Columbia. I would urge the minister

to turn his attention not only to combatting the wildfires in the

province, but to generating some programs to put people to work in a

positive way rather than a destructive way.

Finally, I

suggest to the minister a note of concern with respect to the cost of

fighting wildfires, and appeal to him not to utilize the budgetary

allocation for silvicultural treatment, for intensive management of our

forests, in fighting fires. I suggest that this has happened in the

past. In addition to fighting the fires and containing them, it's

important to maintain the budgetary allocations for growing new forests

and ensuring that new crops are coming on stream so that there will be

a supply of timber for the future.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 54; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to direct a couple of questions towards the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. The explanatory note to

section 3

of the bill states that this

section "clarifies that the Crown is not

obliged to accept an application for Crown land." Can he please explain

to the House why he needs this

section changed?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I could say briefly that I guess it is because of changing times. First

of all, we have regional districts with zoning authority, and from time

to time we do get applications for small parcels of land within an area

that has a larger acreage zoning than would be permitted under the

application. Under those circumstances, we find it difficult to

allocate or make available a parcel of land of, say, five acres, when

the minimum zoning by regional district is 20 acres. There are other

instances where, because of biological circumstances.... For instance,

applications might be made for recreational purposes along a lake where

the number of cottages is such that it poses a health problem, and an

additional allocation of land in that particular area wouldn't be in

the public interest. Those are two of the reasons why this amendment is

required. There are circumstances where an individual applies for

agricultural land that is of marginal agricultural value and that might

have been examined previously by officials of various regions of the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. We feel it would be redundant to

accept an application on an area previously examined and found wanting

as far as capability for agriculture is concerned. Those are three of

the reasons why this amendment is required and why "may" is required

instead of "shall."

MR. HANSON: The existing language of the

section that this new amendment

is going to alter is in

section 7(3). Under that section, "Application

for Crown land," it states: "The minister may disallow an application

if it does not comply with this act and regulations or if, in his opinion, a

disposition of the Crown land applied for is not in the public interest."

Under that existing

section the minister is empowered to do the kinds of things

he just stood up and explained. What he is not pointing out to the House is

that what this amendment is going to do is seek a change in the act which will

allow the minister to disallow an application without even advising the applicant.

Let

me read the

interpretation of the

section being sought in this bill. It

"clarifies that the Crown is not obliged to accept an application for

Crown land." The language of the

section itself says: "Section 7(2) and

(3) " — which I've just read — "is repealed and the following

substituted:

(2) Nothing in this act obliges the Crown to consider an

application for Crown land or to dispose of Crown land pursuant to an

application." In other words, the Crown has no obligation at all to

advise the applicant that he's seeking land that has been set aside as

not for disposal, or that he's asking for land that is already under

the authority of another piece of legislation, or that in his judgment

the minister chooses not to allow disposition of that land at this time.

other words, people can submit an application for Crown land, but they

will never hear back on what the Crown is going to do with that

application. That seems to me like a totally irresponsible position on

the part of the minister. The public, if they're going to apply for

Crown land, should first of all know what Crown land is going to be

made available — that should be publicly identified. After proper

hearing processes and management practices in terms of integrated use

of that land, applications should be then posted, be received, and if a

person makes application, he should be at least entitled to get some

kind of response to his application. Under this

section there will be

no response whatsoever.

I would like to ask the minister a

question on this same section. Why do you feel that you must have

absolute secrecy in terms of the receipt of applications? Why is the

applicant not entitled to any kind of response?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I previously outlined some of the reasons for "may" instead of "shall" being put in the act.

[ Page 8325 ]

One

other reason is that it seems to be necessary to go in the direction of

preplanned dispositions of Crown land. For instance, in the Prince

George special-sales area most of the dispositions of agricultural land

will be on the basis of predisposition. There is a

schedule for these

lands to be disposed by, rather than by the random handling of

individual applications. Because of deferred planning areas coming on

stream, we found it necessary to go to preplanned dispositions. Also,

in most instances — I would say about 95 percent or so of the cases —

all recreational lands are made available on the basis of preplanned

dispositions.

There's no intention whatsoever that secrecy

be involved in this particular

section on the right of individuals to

apply. When an individual applies for land and his application is

unacceptable, I want to assure you that people in the regional offices

must give a justifiable reason for not accepting that application. It's

not a question of secrecy. There must be a reason given. They can't

just reject an application out of hand. As long as I'm the minister,

they're going to give people a reason why it's been turned down.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. HANSON:

Under

section 4 the explanatory note states: "Provides that orders

under this

section are not regulations under the Regulation Act

requiring publication, and that a reservation does not affect the

operation of

section 10." Under the existing legislation,

section 11

states: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may for any purpose that he

considers advisable in the public interest, by notice signed by the

minister and published in the Gazette ,

reserve Crown land from disposition under this act, and may by similar

method amend or cancel in whole or in part a reserve established under

this act or a former act."

Mr. Chairman, this

section is

going to be repealed. The language that is going to replace this

section is not going to require gazetting. In other words, there will

be no published notice of land that is set aside or will not be

disposed of. This is extremely unusual language in a bill of this type.

Here we have a process by which the minister has all the authority in

the world; however, he is obliged under the existing law to gazette

that and publish the areas that are set aside not to be disposed of. He

is seeking in this amendment to remove that so that the public will not

know through the gazetting process what areas are going to be withheld

from disposition. Can the minister please explain to this House why he

needs this section.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Essentially, the

reason for the repeal of the previous

section 11 and the inclusion of

this particular

section 11 is for the purpose of clarifying the

temporary allocation and occupation of land that is set aside as a

reserve under

section 10. It's not necessary that it be published in

the Gazette ; it's a

regulation but not a regulation under the Regulation Act. It was deemed

not to be necessary. The reserve is set aside by order- in-council,

which is a public-information document. It's felt that that's

sufficient. The reasons for the changes here are that it clarifies and

makes uniform these kinds of regulations that aren't covered under the

Regulation Act. The purpose for its change was to clarify the temporary

occupation of land that is under reserve and included in

section 10.

MR. HANSON:

Under the existing legislation and the legislation proposed there are

essentially identical powers with the exception of the fact that the

government does not have to publish in the Gazette

the identified Crown lands that are going to be either withheld from

disposition or made available through some process — auctioning,

lottery, ballot draw or whatever it happens to be. We're talking about

90 percent of the province, although most of that is committed in TFLs

and so forth.

The tradition in this province has been that

through the gazetting process the public would be advised of the lands

that would be set aside or the lands that would be made available. The

minister seems to think that it's irrelevant whether the public is

advised, but we don't; we think there should be an open process and

that the allocation of Crown lands should be very much aboveboard.

That's where we

part company with this government, because the

provisions that they're seeking to change in this bill have a common

theme, Mr. Chairman. The government does not have to respond in the

handling of applications. They don't have to indicate that they're

formally accepting an application, and they don't even have to formally

notify a successful applicant that the final decision has been made.

Secondly, the lands that are to be made available don't have to be published in the Gazette anymore. They're not regulations under the Regulation Act. The minister is not obliged to serve notice in the Gazette .

Now that seems to me an absolutely backward step. We're moving towards

open government — and I don't mean under this present administration.

In terms of all governments there's a great desire for more openness,

confiding in the public and having more access to information on which

to make rational decisions. Under the amendments to this bill, you're

going in the opposite direction: you don't have to let them know when

they've applied; you don't have to gazette the lands that you're

withholding from disposition; and, later on in the same bill, you're

changing the method for payment, which selectively puts those with a

lot of capital and equity in a better position to acquire Crown land.

It's totally the wrong way to go.

Within the existing

section 11 you are empowered to administer Crown land in this province,

providing you follow one pro forma act — that is, to properly list the

land in the Gazette .

oppose this section. It moves towards greater secrecy and less candour

on the part of the government with respect to providing information to

the public regarding what lands are available.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. HANSON:

This amendment changes the method of payment for Crown land. As I

stated under the previous section, when application is made the

government has the power to refuse to acknowledge that application. The

government will not list in the Gazette the lands available or withheld, whatever the case may be.

section 5, the method of payment....

Section 21 is repealed by the new

section 5. Let me explain the implications of this section. It will

allow the minister to issue a Crown grant to a person who has received

Crown land prior to the payment in full for that land. The rationale of

the

[ Page 8326 ]

minister

is that this will allow people to go to the bank and get financing in

order to take a Crown grant and then develop the property.

The

explanation

section of the bill states that this will: "Allow the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to issue a Crown grant before the

full purchase price has been paid where the purchase price has been

secured." That means that if that person has sufficient collateral or

equity he can use the Crown grant to get mortgage money from the bank

to either develop the property or pay the remainder of the price, and

then he could sell the property. What we have here is a financing

arrangement enshrined in legislation which will favour the rich.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Imagination!

MR. HANSON:

If you on the other side of the House disagree with me, let me outline

an identical case that is happening in Prince George. After extensive

planning, 250,000 hectares of land have come under a management plan in

areas adjacent to Prince George; 65,000 hectares of agricultural land

that is presently timbered is being sold in a series of auctions. One

auction has been held in its entirety; the second auction was cancelled

after half an hour. This particular auction process, as presently

structured under the guidance of this minister, is opposed by loggers

as well as by agriculturalists in the Prince George area.

The

value of the standing timber far exceeds the price being asked — the

upset price and the bonus price of the previous auctions. What we have

here under this present change in the act is the opportunity for a

logging company, for example, with sufficient equity and collateral to

go to an auction and make a bid. Within three days they've satisfied

the bonus bid, and they're given a certain amount of time to handle the

rest of the payments. If they can satisfy the minister that they have

adequate security and collateral to obtain the full Crown grant — to

obtain the full title to the land without paying for it — they can then

get the Crown grant, go to the bank, and get sufficient mortgage money

to pay off the full purchase price and then dispose of the land. That

is different than the tradition of this province.

What has

been asked for by both the forestry people and the agriculturalists in

the Prince George area is a two-tiered auction. They are suggesting

that the timber should be auctioned separately for fair market price to

ensure that the people of the province get a fair price for that

existing timber. That money could go in two directions. First, it could

be put in a trust fund to be used to develop that land to reach its

full agricultural potential. In a second auction the agricultural land

could be auctioned and a draw on the assets, the equity, and the return

on the standing timber could be used to develop that land. Secondly,

that money received from the standing timber at a free auction could

then go to other enhanced programs for the disposition of Crown land

for residential purposes.

At the moment the agriculturalists

cannot compete with the logging companies to acquire the land to put it

into farm production. The logging companies can then secure a Crown

grant, or they can outbid the agriculturalists at the auction. It's

happening, and that's why they opposed it in the last auction. The

agriculturalists cannot compete with the logging companies for the land

that has been zoned for agricultural purposes. The loggers have openly

stated that if they bid for that land and acquire it they have no

intention of developing it for agriculture. It's on public record in

the newspapers in Prince George.

MR. KEMPF: How much timber was on that land?

MR. HANSON:

There are sufficient cunits on some of that land that the timber is

valued at $300,000. The value of the bonus price and the upset price

puts the price of a cunit at about $3.40. On a small business auction

the timber is worth $6 or $7. So it's a fire-sale price for the logger,

and the agriculturalist can't get in.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You should read the Prince George papers.

MR. KEMPF: Is that how you get all your information?

MR. HANSON: Not at all; I talk to the people in Prince George.

Mr.

Chairman,

section 5 alters the method of payment for Crown land.

Perhaps the explanation of the minister would be fine and dandy if they

were allowing the ordinary people of the province to acquire Crown land

and then use this method of receiving the Crown grant to facilitate

financing and the development of the property. That's not happening out

in the field, Mr. Chairman. What's happening is that those who can

afford to pay almost market price for this Crown land, or who can bid

competitively with a logging company, can acquire the Crown land, and

not the ordinary individuals who want to farm this land that is set

aside, for example, in the Prince George area.

What is

stated in the bill and what is practised in the actual administration

of disposition of Crown land — the method of payment being proposed,

where at the minister's own discretion he will decide whether there is

sufficient security to issue the Crown grant prior to the full payment

— gives total ministerial discretion. It doesn't make the opportunities

available for the ordinary people of this province to acquire this land.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the argument as to whether or not loggers are permitted

to acquire Crown land under agricultural sale seems to be somewhat off

the topic of this section. But since it has been so extensively dealt

with, I'd like to perhaps pose a question or two to the minister as

well. I happen to know of some of the people who acquired land in the

recent sales; some of them are logging contractors.

I wonder

if the minister could advise me if somehow we must have two classes of

citizens in this province. Why those who happen to be involved in the

forest industry somehow cannot also be involved in ranching and other

agricultural endeavours, and attempt to acquire agricultural land.... I

know of a couple of the people who are in the logging business —

logging contractors — who are also substantially in the ranching

business and were successful in bidding on these sales in Prince

George. Perhaps the minister could provide me with some information.

Are there many people in that part of British Columbia who are involved

in agriculture and who also work in the forest industry, either as

employees or as entrepreneurs in that sector? I know of very few myself

who aren't involved in both industries. I see no reason why

[ Page 8327 ]

should discriminate against those people who happen to be involved in

our number one industry and are also being involved in our number three

industry.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there are

certainly a lot of logger-farmers in the Prince George area, and many

of those are in the business of logging for the purpose of getting into

agriculture. The way in which they can do it is by making a few bucks

logging until they can put a farm into production, which costs a lot of

money and takes a long time as well. This is how they do it. I know

from my discussions with farmers in British Columbia.... On numerous

occasions they've indicated to me that they need the timber on that

particular parcel of land for the purpose of helping to defray the

costs of fencing, putting land under cultivation and buying some cattle

— if there is any money left over. I think that's a good procedure and

there is nothing wrong with it. I'm not going to discriminate against

anyone who wants to take a particular avenue to get into agriculture.

That

member from the sidewalks and the asphalt jungle of Victoria has a very

vivid imagination. He talks about the change here in our certificates

of purchase, which are documents. They're not registrable — they merely

give a receipt for moneys paid — and we've come to the conclusion that

that particular document is no longer a functional document in this

ministry. We believe that we have the authority and the right to secure

— to protect, I should say — the public interest on Crown land by a

first mortgage, which is a far more substantial and more meaningful way

of proceeding than through the certificate of purchase.

Now

he either has a vivid imagination or he isn't very knowledgeable about

the land disposition policies in this province, because this kind of

situation, Mr. Chairman, would be applicable in most instances —

virtually all instances — to making available residential land in

British Columbia, because residential land is allocated in most

instances by a lot-draw system, the fairest way in which to make

residential land available to people. Not only is it the fairest way;

it's the way in which this government is able to keep down the cost of

residential land for people in this province. So instead of giving him

a certificate of purchase, we then are able to convey to him a Crown

grant along with a first mortgage, with the encumbrance to ensure that

that commitment that he has made to us will be abided by — in other

words, that commitment to build a home within a specified time on that

piece of land. So that's essentially what it applies to.

This

minor change in the act doesn't apply to agricultural land at all,

because agricultural land is released on the basis of lease, develop

and purchase. You first lease. You don't buy agricultural land; you

enter into a lease-purchase agreement with the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing, and then you have a commitment either to put so much of

that land under cultivation or to seek that condition before you can

acquire the title. So it's not a question of an individual getting a

certificate of purchase or getting the title with an encumbrance on it

this time. No, he doesn't get that title until such time as he has

performed. In other words, he goes through the lease-develop-purchase

procedure rather than the ability to acquire land through a Crown grant

with an encumbrance on the title. So that's where you're confused, Mr.

Member for Victoria. It has no application whatsoever to the

availability and disposal of agricultural land in this province.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, last week there was an auction held in Prince George. It

was stopped. Here's a report from a rancher-logger who opposes the

method employed by this minister to dispose of this land. Chris Winther

strongly opposes the government's system for auctioning. However, he

held his nose and went to the auction and bought land. He said he

couldn't resist the opportunity. He paid $124,000. He outbid the local

farmers and agriculturalists there. Part of that $124,000 was an upset

price.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, this

section deals with certificates of purchase, the

elimination of certificates of purchase and the conversion of those to

the issuance of a Crown grant with an encumbrance. It has nothing to do

with the lease-develop-purchase option of agricultural land. It has

nothing to do with the auctions and what people pay, or whether or not

there's timber on the land. It's just the advisability of moving to the

question of making available a Crown grant with an encumbrance on the

title retained by first mortgage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

members, we seem to be straying a little bit from the

section before

us. There will be an opportunity, of course, in the ministerial

estimates, which will be before us and which will give ample

opportunity to canvass the points the member is now referring to. But

we must specifically deal with the relevancy of the section.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, under the existing act the

section we're dealing with is

the method by which people in this province pay for Crown land. The

section is called "Method of payment." I am referring....

HON. MR. CHABOT: How they purchase Crown land, not how they acquire it. It's not leased.

MR. HANSON: Okay. It's purchased in Prince George by auction.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's not a purchase; that's a lease.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, the minister spoke on this issue and I'm just going to

speak briefly on this particular case. Mr. Winther in Prince George

paid $124,000 for a piece of land that is now worth $279,000.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I tried through an interjection to

outline to the member just what this particular

section of the act

says. It talks about the purchase of Crown land; it does not associate

itself with the leasing of Crown land. There is a big difference. What

you're trying to do is make a case on the issue of making agricultural

land available in Prince George. That's a lease disposition, not a

purchase. So I wish you'd get off the lease aspect, because this

particular

section is applicable only to purchase.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, I believe the matter has been very well canvassed and I

would ask the member to return at this time to the specifics of

section

5 before us, again reminding him that he will have ample opportunity in

the ministerial estimates to canvass the point he is now referring to.

[ Page 8328 ]

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the Chair, when we had second

reading debate on this bill, the minister offered no information. We

now have come to committee stage and he gave us his word that he would

discuss it in detail in committee stage. Now he's running interference

and doesn't want to answer questions in committee stage. The

section of

the bill is called."Method of payment" in both the existing

section and

the

section being brought into the House. Whether it be lease or

purchase, it is a method by which people pay the Crown for Crown land.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. For the member's guidance, let me just

refer to the first few words of

section 5(21), which states "...where

an applicant purchases Crown land." So, hon. member, we are bound by

the rules of the House to canvass only those matters specific to the

section. Otherwise, we could conceivably enter into either second

reading or ministerial estimates each time we review any specific

section. They're not my rules, hon. member. They're the rules that

guide us, and I must ask at this time that the member confine his

remarks to the specifics of the

section — that is, as it states, the

purchase of Crown land.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the

lease that the minister refers to is just a longer period in time. The

purchase can occur five years later. It's still a purchase. Let me

outline how it occurs. At the auction there is an upset price

determined by the Crown. There is a bonus price, whereby the people

attending the auction bid on those other values such as timber, etc.

The method of payment is that within three days the bonus price must be

paid. Each year 1 percent of the total upset price must be paid. After

five years the person can purchase that land.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's not a purchase in the initial instance.

MR. HANSON:

It is a purchase. Whether it is a lease or an auction or a buy, the

people are going to acquire Crown land in fee simple at some time. Your

argument does not necessarily move us off the logic of my argument on

this section.

I am trying to explain to the minister that

that method by which he is extracting revenue from that Crown land for

the benefit of the Crown is unduly favouring large logging operations

and people that have large security or collateral that can outbid the

local farming interest.

I was citing a case in Prince George

where a person who happens to have both ranching and logging in his

vocation and who opposes the method by which this Crown land is being

disposed of said that he held his nose and went to the auction because

he couldn't resist it. It was just too good a deal. The reason that it

was too good a deal was because he acquired for $124,000, and there was

sufficient timber on it, 31,000 cunits at $9 a cunit, which was

$300,000. So he got $175,000 in his pocket for nothing. The ranchers

are angry, the agriculturalists are angry, everyone is furious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Again I can appreciate the member's brief referral. Now if we could delve back into

section 5....

MR. HANSON:

What I was attempting to do by pointing out the Prince George example

is that the method of payment as outlined in the new amendment allows

the minister the opportunity to issue a Crown grant before the full

purchase price is paid. Now that may be a wonderful thing for someone

who is able to acquire the land, go to the bank with the Crown grant,

take the money, develop the property, etc. But when we see the practice

carried out by the minister, actually how he disposes of land — how

these auctions and allocations are made — the language in the new

amendment will favour even more....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Dewdney rises on a point of order.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I've been listening very patiently here to this debate, and this is

strictly a debate on the principle of this bill and not on this

section

whatsoever. Merely

section 2 is referred to: "The chief of branch may

issue a geophysical licence on receipt of an application and a payment

of a fee of $25." It only says here....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong bill, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

No, it's not the wrong bill. Mr. Chairman, there's a debate going here

on principle. This merely refers to the fee of $25. Now I won't debate

the fee, whether it should be a different fee or that fee, and that's

all hat the debate is concerned with, nothing else. I'll go along with

it, but you can't go along with any of.... This is ridiculous.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Basically, the fact has again been brought to the attention of the

Chair that we are beginning to stray from

section 5. The leader in the

straying seems to be the second member for Victoria. I would ask again

if he could possibly at this time, having canvassed other areas,

conclude his remarks on

section 5.

On the point of order, the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE:

I think probably what we're suffering now is the fact that the minister

insisted the other day, when second reading was up, that the bill would

be more comprehensively and better debated in committee. At that time

we suggested that it would not, that the latitude in committee is not

sufficient to properly canvass this bill. Mr. Chairman, when a bill is

debated in second reading, in principle when you open up

an act,

actually the whole act is at that point debatable. That's a long

parliamentary principle, a precedent established long before either you

or I or even the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who is so

articulate, was here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's an

interesting concept. Certainly if it was an undertaking from the House

to the committee, then the arguments by the member have some validity.

Nonetheless, we are still obliged somewhat to constrain our remarks,

Hon. member, or we would be canvassing much more than is before us. The

remarks by the member for New Westminster, which have on occasion

been...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Haywire.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

No. ...which on occasion have, hon. members, been brought to the

Chair's attention before, and most aptly and appropriately bear some

consideration on

[ Page 8329 ]

the fact.... I believe the second member for Victoria was on his feet at that time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, he yields to me. I appreciate the point of order raised by the member for New Westminster.

First

of all, yes, I did say at the time of second reading that it was a bill

that should be more appropriately discussed or debated during the

committee stage, because there are many unrelated sections in this

particular bill — this minor housekeeping amendment. There are many

unrelated sections. Therefore I can't see how you can have an

intelligent and meaningful debate during second reading with all these

various sections, because I'll tell you what happens. The member stands

up and goes from

section to section, so what you have then is

essentially a duplication of debate in the second reading and the

committee stage. That's why I was brief. And I've said that I would be

prepared to discuss it to the fullest extent possible with the members,

and to explain to them where they're wrong sometimes and what the act

and the amendments essentially do. That's what I'm trying to do.

But

I want you to know that this young member over here, the second member

for Victoria, is way off when he's making a point on

section 5, because

that's one that relates to the certificate of purchase and that talks

about the purchase of Crown land. It does not talk about the lease of

Crown land. The disposition of agricultural land, in 99 percent of the

cases, is done through the lease mechanism, not through the purchase

mechanism. What you're essentially talking about in the change is

residential land, not agricultural land.

MR. HANSON: It doesn't say that.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Why don't you read one of our policy statements on the availability of

agricultural land? You show me anywhere where it mentions the purchase

of agricultural land, and I'll eat that manual. You show me anywhere.

It's

on a lease basis, and the member is wrong when he talks about acquiring

a Crown grant with an encumbrance, with a first mortgage held by the

Crown to protect its assets in the public interest — when he associates

it with agriculture. I suggest that the member doesn't know what he is

talking about if he's going to persist that way.

MR. HANSON:

The minister is attempting to obfuscate this whole thing. The method of

payment in the legislation is in the act before us. We're interested in

the law, which is what we're debating here, not some brochure that's up

in Fort Street or some other office in this province — something that

could be changed any moment. What he is doing is moving the disposition

of Crown land, and the way it is administered, out of the public view.

This is what we are opposed to. The method of payment will favour those

with sufficient security, in getting the ear of the minister to obtain

a Crown grant. That is what we are opposing here.

MR. HOWARD:

I have just a very few brief remarks. I'm inclined to believe, in

listening to the minister, that no matter what valid points are raised

by the second member for Victoria — and he raised many of them — the

minister would find some way of squeezing out from under and not

wanting to deal with him. But that's all right. That's the way the

minister functions.

There's a lot of bad feeling out there. There's a lot of disappointment.

MR. KEMPF: Especially in your constituency.

MR. HOWARD:

That's mostly because the member for Omineca visits Smithers

occasionally; that's why there is bad feeling. Stay off the wine for a

while, Jack, and you'll be able to get up to date on things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I must ask....

MR. HOWARD:

I had no imputations or accusations of motivation in that. I was only

responding to the inane interruptions from the member for Omineca.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The remark is withdrawn.

MR. HOWARD:

I was talking with the minister, and there is a lot of dissatisfaction.

People have a lot of difficulty in trying to get hold of a small piece

of land on which to build a house. I could relate instances that date

back over quite a number of years where the rules are changed: the

lands branch says one thing one day, the person tries to comply with it

and a couple of months later they find the rules have been changed and

they can't comply with them because they've moved the goal-posts. There

are quite a number of instances of that nature among people who apply

for Crown land.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

frustration that they feel is usually visited upon the land managers,

the local officials of the ministry. They're the people in the front

line, the ones who get the abuse and have the visits from those

citizens who want to acquire a piece of land. But that's not where

their anger should be visited. It should be visited upon the minister;

because all the land managers, the regional people and the district

people are doing is carrying out policy.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I rise on standing order 43 to ask what relevancy this kind of debate has to this particular section.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point of order is well taken. The committee is advised once again

that we are on

section 5. Perhaps we could be specific, as our standing

orders require us to do. Be relevant and specific to

section 5 with

respect to full purchase price and what's carried there.

MR. HOWARD:

That was exactly the

section that I was dealing with — the one that

talks about an applicant purchasing Crown land and so on. I'm talking

about leases and about the difficulties that people have had in making

applications to purchase Crown land and the difficulties that they have

because of the policies of this minister, not because of the policies

of people in the local offices, who are just carrying out the orders of

the minister. Even municipalities have difficulty. The town of Smithers

passed a motion a while ago asking if the minister would provide Crown

land at half price, I believe it was, so that they could service it and

develop it. That was the theory of it, as I understood it, and the whole

[ Page 8330 ]

council

went along with that. The minister said: "No way. You're not going to

get that kind of deal. He had reasons for doing it. The reasons that he

advanced....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order,

we're not dealing with the Smithers council and the problems associated

with getting Crown land. We're dealing here with a change, and the

change is very minor. The change is moving from giving a certificate of

purchase as a receipt for the purchase of Crown land to the minister

taking out a first mortgage and issuing the Crown grant with an

encumbrance. It has nothing to do with the attitude of a few socialists

on the Smithers council or anything like that. So it's very narrow, and

I hope that you would just read that little section.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Your point of order is, once again, well taken. I'm sure all members

are aware of the implications of the specific

section before us. The

committee would be well served if we could be relevant to that section.

MR. HOWARD:

The minister mentioned something about being very narrow. The only

thing is his narrow attitude towards the acquisition of Crown land. The

record should show, and it probably will be disclosed to those people

who are interested in this subject matter out there, that the minister

hid behind some minor technicality to refuse to deal with a very valid

question — namely, the opportunity of people to acquire Crown land upon

which they can build residential homes. That's what we're dealing with.

It's the purchases here as well that we're talking about. The minister

is putting and has put every possible obstacle in the way of the

average citizen trying to get his hands on a little piece of land to

build a home at a reasonable price. That's what we're faced with.

Narrow? You bet, Mr. Chairman. As narrow-minded as it is possible for a

cabinet minister to get about this subject matter that's what is

applicable to this minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll

remind the committee that we cannot deal in any debate in the committee

or in the House with personal allusions. I'm sure all members are aware

of that. The minister has indicated the specific narrowness of this

section before us. I believe that the members are now entering debate

which would be much more appropriately dealt with in the ministerial

estimates.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard) mentioned that the minister is hiding behind this narrow

and small change to the Land Act and suggested that I'm not prepared to

answer questions about land and its disposition in this province. He'll

have ample opportunity to ask all the questions he wants. He'll get all

the answers, too.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of further questions for the minister.

This is a very intriguing section. In past practice, when Crown land

was disposed of or transferred to the federal government or anyone

else,

section 47 of the existing act ensured that the subsurface

mineral rights.... Let me just read this section. It's under exceptions

and reservations.

"

(1) A disposition of Crown

land under this or another act (

a) excepts and reserves the following

interests, rights and privileges, (

i) a right in the Crown, or any

person acting for it....

It talks about any construction of roads, canals, bridges, etc. Then it goes on:

"(ii)

a right in the Crown, or any person acting for it or under its

authority, to enter any part of the land and to raise and get out of it

any minerals, precious or base, including coal, petroleum and any gas

or gases which may be found in, on or under the land, and to use and

enjoy any and every part of the land, and of its easements....

"(iii)

a right in any person authorized by the Crown to take and occupy water

privileges and to have and enjoy the rights of carrying of water over,

through or under any part of the land granted....

"(iv)

a right in any person authorized by the Crown to take from any part of

the land granted, without compensation, gravel sand, stone, lime,

timber or other material...."

The interesting part of this

bill is that this amendment excludes this

section from the transfers to

the federal government. In other words, these subsurface resources —

water and all these things — that his government says should belong to

Ontario are now subject to exemption. In other words, the province

could transfer the subsurface rights — the water rights, etc. — to the

federal government. Would you explain in detail what this means?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to explain to the member just what is

contained in this minor change in the Land Act. Essentially it gives

officials of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing more flexibility

in dealing with dispositions of Crown land to the federal Crown. In

many instances we deal with small sites — be they coast guard stations,

parcels of land that the national government wants to acquire for

salmonid enhancement programs or small parcels of land for marine

stations. Under these circumstances there are exceptions raised about

all these restrictions, and some of them are really not applicable. I

agree with the need for the protection of the provincial Crown by some

of these exceptions that are noted under

section 47 of the Land Act. In

many instances they're irrelevant as far as the disposition of some of

these sites to the federal government from time to time. What it really

does is give the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing a little more

flexibility in conveying land to the federal Crown. That's essentially

what it does. It's a good little amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps it will help the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson) if I also advise that in order for us to proceed with the

settlements of the cutoff lands with respect to the 21 bands still

remaining outstanding, we must be in the position to transfer those

lands presently in the name of the Crown provincial to the Crown land

of the federal government, because those lands will go back and form

part of those Indian reserves. We therefore must free ourselves from

the mandatory conditions that are spelled out in

section 47, because

when the reserves were established in the first place, they were not

subject to any of those conditions. When we transfer the cutoff lands

back we want them to be in exactly the same condition, and we can't do

it without getting away from

section 47. As you will note,

[ Page 8331 ]

this

section still leaves to the minister the right to stipulate in the

particular grant those conditions to which the grant must remain

entitled in other circumstances. In concluding those Indian land

settlements we must be able to transfer them free to the Crown land of

Canada.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the

Attorney-General for his response. I had canvassed that subject at an

earlier time, and the answer I got was that the cutoff lands were not

applicable, and this legislation was not entertaining that idea.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where did you canvass that?

MR. HANSON: I canvassed that with you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where?

MR. HANSON:

Right out of this hall. The Attorney-General realizes that it's very

important for us to anticipate what may be on this minister's mind,

because he certainly doesn't state it in this House.

As the

Attorney-General stated, under

section 47(4), the authority of the

minister is not limited in terms of exceptions and reservations. You

can negotiate with the federal government under the existing statute.

It says: "A disposition of Crown land may, by express words, except or

reserve to the Crown rights and privileges more extensive than those

referred to in subsection (1)," which contains all of those —

subsurface and above-surface. This seems like a redundant section.

That's why we're always suspicious of this minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is unparliamentary, hon. member. Please, to the section.

MR. HANSON:

In the resolution of the cutoff lands, I can understand why the

subsurface, the other rights, benefits and privileges of that land,

would have to be secured in one package. Why the Coast Guard sites

would feel they had to have value from that land other than just the

right to occupy its surface is something that perhaps the minister

could clarify. Why would a marine station or a site for a

salmon-enhancement program need the subsurface rights and other status

of ownership? Can't they just get some rights of usage? In those cases,

why do you have to transfer ownership to the federal government?

Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. HANSON:

I have a question on

section 12, prohibition of use of Crown land in

designated areas. The change is for the authority to prohibit a

specific use of Crown land in a designated area. How does this

section

affect, for example, a designated ecological reserve, or some land

designation under another act? Under this

section you don't have to

post it in the Gazette ; there's no public notice.

What

about the question of public access to Crown land in general in this

section? Specifically, how does this

section relate to ecological

reserves? How does it relate to public access to Crown land?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

There is a very minor change to this section. All it does essentially

is bring it under the Regulation Act. As the explanatory note points

out, it requires publication, which means that any reserves established

would appear in the B.C. Gazette . I don't see where there's any change of a substantial nature; just the publishing of them.

Section 12 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 54, Land Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, to assist members in their consideration of the

expenditure estimates for the ministry, I would like to detail several

of the major features of our estimates this year. At the outset, I

should observe that the estimates for the current fiscal year of $314.9

million have been increased by $48.7 million, or 18 percent, over

fiscal 1981-82. Correspondingly, there has been an increase in the

approved establishment of the ministry by 181 persons over the previous

fiscal year.

Members will observe from their consideration

of the estimates that the major increase is recorded in the police

services vote. The increase of approximately $17 million reflects the

negotiations which went on through 1981 with the federal government for

the renewal of the RCMP contract. That contract provided for an

increase to provinces in the cost-sharing formula and a redefinition of

the cost base, and adjusted the basis for contract billings for the

current fiscal year. Those factors, in combination, resulted in the

increase which is reflected by these estimates.

In the

administration and support services vote the increase of $4.5 million

reflects increased building occupancy charges associated in the main

with major new facilities which have been or will be occupied by the

ministry during this fiscal year. Among those facilities is the

Vancouver pre-trial services centre, which should be operational in

January 1983. Additionally a number of new court facilities are also

included in the expanding building occupancy base for the ministry.

I previously noted, there has been a significant increase in staff

resources this fiscal year. Of the 181 positions, 49 represent the

conversion of long-standing auxiliary positions to full-time positions

in the ministry. Approximately 60 positions were provided to court

services to meet the requirements of new court facilities and to assist

in the development of a trial coordination program in the provincial

court. That

[ Page 8332 ]

program

will lead to a significant improvement of the use of current facilities

and resources in lower mainland provincial courts. Additional staff has

also been provided to the office of the public trustee and the land

titles program to assist in the implementation of computer-based

management systems.

I must bring to the attention of

members, however, my concern not only with the details of the estimates

of the ministry, but with the continued growth in demand for service

throughout the justice system in the province. We are witnessing an

exceptional pressure on that system because of continuing growth and

demand for service. We have recorded steadily increasing pressure on

policing resources throughout the province and a corresponding increase

through the courts and the correctional system.

I am

particularly concerned at this time with the pressure which is being

exerted on the correctional system. Where the province has recorded a

relatively stable corrections population over the past decade, there

are indications of some growth in the past 12 months. There has been a

continuous growth in the adult inmate population and an equivalent

pressure is exerted on the juvenile programs and facilities in the

province. With the prospect of the proclamation and implementation of

the Young Offenders Act in the spring of next year, we can expect those

pressures to rise significantly.

Over the past year the

average number of sentence omissions has increased by 24 percent;

provincial correctional facilities are severely taxed, and we have

during the year operated at emergency capacity levels in a number of

our institutions. While our primary objective must be to develop in our

society behaviour which avoids contact with the criminal justice

system, we must nevertheless be prepared to deal with those who come in

conflict with the law and to do this in the most effective way. This

demand for service must be met, in large measure, through improved

programming; at the same time, however, correctional facilities in the

province must be improved to meet the demand we are presently

confronting,

As a priority the ministry has identified the

need to redevelop and replace existing correctional facilities

throughout the province. For decades correctional facility development

in the province has been neglected, with the result that a capital

replacement program remains one of the highest priorities of the

ministry. Further capital development is also planned for court

facilities. In the fiscal year just completed, new or expanded court

facilities were provided in Terrace, Sidney, Campbell River, Houston

and Invermere. In the current fiscal year the ministry will continue to

completion new facilities in Ashcroft, Kamloops Kitimat, North

Vancouver, Port Alberni and Vanderhoof. These facilities, representing

approximately $42 million in capital projects, will provide significant

employment in the various regions of the province where those

facilities will be located.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'm

pleased to advise members that the ministry has enjoyed a particularly

successful year in dealing with a wide range of responsibilities. That

achievement, in the most part, is a reflection of the dedication and

professional commitment of the staff of this ministry.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I hope we're dealing with a changed

man holding the office of Attorney-General. That big 60 should make some difference,

should it not?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What did it do to you?

MR. MACDONALD:

I can't remember. There are three ways to tell when you're kind of

getting hilly like that; one of them is that you begin to lose your

memory, and the other two I can't remember.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps even in moments of levity, the committee could be reminded that

personal allusions are not really appropriate in Committee of Supply.

Please proceed.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm talking about

myself. I went to the doctor and he checked me all over and said:

'Alex, you're fine; you'll live to be 60." I said: "Doctor, I passed

that some time ago."

However, I'm going to deal with a

number of subjects, and I'm going to start by chiding the

Attorney-General very much in terms of being open. He still has too

much of a tendency to secrecy and to nurturing things, even with his

cabinet colleagues.

This is my only reference to the case of

Olson — one of the greatest tragedies that's ever happened in this

province in terms of those children. It's my contention, however, that

the Attorney-General should have had an open public inquest. I realize

that the inquiry carried on by the coroner was quite thorough, but

surely you can't satisfy the public on a thing of that importance that

the procedures have been correct, that everything possible was done,

unless you have a public inquiry. Yet the Attorney-General wrote to his

colleague the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

on May 14, 1982 — it's an example of what I call hiding the acorns and

not being candid with his colleagues or with the public — saying: "With

respect to the matter of a public inquest, this is a decision which

rests solely with the chief coroner. I have no authority to direct him

to hold an inquest, and it would be entirely inappropriate for me to

interfere with him in the exercise of his quasi-judicial

responsibilities."

Now of course that is pure nonsense; the

Attorney-General has the authority to direct an inquest. He has the

authority, and I'll read the section, because — and I'm sure the

Attorney-General knows it — under

section 24 of the Coroners Act it

states that "the Attorney-General may order an inquest...where he is

satisfied that a coroner refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which

ought to be held." Now you can be very legalistic about that, but to

write to a colleague and say, "I have no authority to direct that an

inquest be held in a case where it should be held," is ridiculous. It's

really telling that colleague and the public — presumably this is the

message — something that isn't in accordance with the law or the facts

of the situation.

Once the Attorney-General knew that an

inquiry was going to be held and not an inquest, that was a case where

the coroner had neglected to hold an inquest. For the Attorney-General

to say, "I have no authority to direct this inquest," is simply

ridiculous and misleading one of his own cabinet colleagues. That's the

kind of secretiveness we don't need in this ministry. We get far too

much of it.

I want to raise two or three subjects with the

Attorney-General, and to discuss a case that the ombudsman brought

before the Attorney-General. The inquiry was ordered by the former

Attorney-General, now the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Gardom). In March 1979, that minister announced he had started a

complete review of the horse-racing industry in the province of British

Columbia, and briefs were received. In referring to it a year later, the

[ Page 8333 ]

present

Attorney-General said it would be made public. I cannot possibly

imagine why it should not be made public anyway. I think this

government's habit of hiding and burying reports and inquiries that

have been paid for with taxpayer money is highly reprehensible. For

that Attorney-General, who comes into this House or before the public

and says, "I maybe introducing freedom-of-information legislation," to

bury this report is totally unjustifiable.

The ombudsman,

whose job was created by statute, ran into stonewalling, obstruction

and delay and various explanations as to why this public report should

not be available to the public — or to the cabinet for its

decision-making; there's no harm in that. The cabinet did make its

decision. The report was prepared, filed and received. As a result, the

laws were changed, and B.C. breeders received a higher percentage of

the parimutuel take. Some of them were not satisfied with it. The

explanation that the Attorney-General finally gave to the ombudsman and

to the people of the province of British Columbia for suppressing that

report by way of a certificate under

section 17 of the act was on the

basis that it might be involved in cabinet deliberations, could apply

to any report prepared for government. In other words, you stonewalled

the ombudsman, contrary to your own commitment that it be made public,

and on the most technical, flimsy and invalid grounds.

The

section which the ombudsman reports that the Attorney-General relies on

says: "if the document or thing might result in or involve the

disclosure of deliberations of the executive council." Why should a

public report involve the disclosure of the deliberations of the

cabinet? I've never in my life heard of anything more nonsensical,

illogical and invalid in terms of reasoning. So the public asks why the

Attorney-General of British Columbia, who pretends to believe in

freedom of information, is hiding this report." Some people say it's

because it involves the brother of the Premier, R.J. Bennett, who is

one of the biggest breeders of horses in the province.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

You say that's being very unfair; that's not the real reason. But the

reasons that the Attorney-General gave are totally unjustifiable —

absolutely unjustifiable. It's legal chop logic that doesn't mean a

thing. If that's the way you, Mr. Attorney-General, interpret the

Ombudsman Act, then you've stymied the ombudsman on any case you want.

You'll say: "Oh, this might come before cabinet; it might involve

disclosure of deliberations of the executive council." How that could

happen is totally beyond me. It's the kind of secretiveness that has

characterized the Attorney-General's ministry, rather than open

justice. It's the kind of thing that would not for a moment be

tolerated in a court of law. That's the kind of thing we object to.

also object to the way the regional prosecutor, Mr. Hoem, was handled.

I know his case is before the courts, and I suspect the

Attorney-General is going to lose the case because he made a judgment

call. I won't discuss the case itself, but I would remind the

Attorney-General that following the firing of Mr. Al Hoem, he made....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I shouldn't have to remind the

second member for Vancouver East. He is aware that there are

proceedings in the courts in this province, and the matter he's

discussing therefore is sub judice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

point is well taken. The committee is advised of the rule of sub

judice, and we cannot offend it. I would ask the hon. second member for

Vancouver East and all other members to bear that in mind, because this

is something that could happen during these particular estimates.

MR. MACDONALD:

I do not intend to discuss that case any more than I have done already.

At the time the Attorney-General was asked about that, he went on and

said these words. "The Attorney- General said that he can't say whether

other persons are being disciplined, but that's a possibility." That

was totally unjustifiable coming from the Attorney-General of British

Columbia. That's a message going out to other Crown prosecutors, who I

would assume are doing their duty, and giving them the intimation —

which in my opinion is a threat — that if they offend the

Attorney-General or government because they're zealous in the conduct

of their office, they too will receive the treatment that Hoem

received. That's the only plain meaning of the words. If somebody has

to be discharged from the public service and it is properly done and

there were proper grounds for that discharge, fine. But you don't throw

a general threat over all the rest of them out there embarked on their

duties. Maybe the Attorney-General will stand up and say that I

misquoted. What I have quoted is from the newspapers, and if the

Attorney-General assures me that he was misquoted I'll be glad to take

his word. But if he was not misquoted about the possibility of other

Crown counsel being discharged....

This has nothing to do

with the Hoem case, Mr. Chairman. I see you are in a very pensive mood

and listening closely. I'm talking about the others and this veiled

threat from the Attorney-General that they might go down the road.

"That's a possibility." You don't make that kind of remark, especially

to people who are fulfilling a quasi-judicial function as a prosecutor

has to do. I can't talk about the main discharge that took place, but I

can say that those remarks should never have been made by the

Attorney-General of British Columbia,

I will see if the Attorney-General responds and then bring up one or two other matters.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In reverse order, if the member will consider very carefully the

question posed to me and the answer given, I think that he will see

that level of frankness that he says is missing from the discharge of

my responsibility. Maybe I could clarify the matter for the member by

simply saying that there were other members of the criminal justice

division involved in the circumstances of the case associated with Mr.

Hoem. The question was asked at a particular time in our consideration

of those matters and the answer was given accordingly. It was frank and

fair. I can assure the member and you, Mr. Chairman, that that

investigation has been complete and that no other Crown counsel are

being disciplined.

With respect to the ombudsman's report,

the special report which deals with the matter of horse-racing, I

continue to be amazed at the inability of members of the Legislature to

read the ombudsman's report and to do so with understanding. The

horse-race report was the result of extensive inquiry made by officials

of the Ministry of the Attorney-General, the

[ Page 8334 ]

Ministry

of Finance and the then Ministry of Economic Development, now Industry

and Small Business Development. This was started under my predecessor

and completed just about the time that I became the Attorney-General.

read the report, and I admit that I was asked in the corridor by a

member of the press if it would be public and I said: Yes, it would.

However, on subsequent examination of the report it was clear that

matters dealt with by the horse-race study task force or committee

covered not only matters of taxation but also matters which had

implications for the Criminal Code and were then the subject of

continuing discussions between this province and the federal

government, both the Department of Agriculture in the federal

government and the Department of Justice, and as well as by other

provinces. It was the subject of discussion among the provincial

Attorneys-General at the meeting in Newfoundland last fall. Some of the

matters dealt with in that report have not yet been completed. As a

consequence, when a demand was made for production of the report, I

considered that it was inappropriate on that occasion to make the

report public. I know this has created concern in the minds of some

people that there are aspects of the report which are being denied to

them. May I hasten to say that to the extent that they are, they are

matters which still remain under consideration by this and other

governments. All the other aspects of the report which were dealt with

have indeed been translated into legislation that has passed in this

House.

The ombudsman embarked upon his study and the

difficulty arose only when he demanded not only to see the report as

part of his investigation but also to see all of the files of the

ministry associated therewith. Those files dealt with matters which

extended far beyond the ambit of the report itself. Those files

contained cabinet submissions which were made by me with respect to

horse racing matters and taxation matters following discussions with

the Minister of Finance. To that extent I was unable to make available

to the ombudsman the material that he requested without interfering

with the matters which were the subject of deliberations before the

executive council, and I so informed him. To my surprise the ombudsman

then offered me the opportunity of selectively making available to him

parts of the file. I considered that that would be a most inappropriate

step for me to take because it would place the ombudsman in, I thought,

a very embarrassing position. As a consequence his continued insistence

that he have the material in order that he could complete his inquiry

of the matter necessitated that I issue a certificate that the statute

provides in those circumstances.

With respect to the matter

of the powers of the Attorney-General and the coroner, the member has

read the section. He therefore knows perfectly well that it is the

right of the Attorney-General to order an inquest if any particular

matter arises only when the coroner refuses or neglects to hold an

inquest. There was no refusal on the part of the coroner; that was his

choice. There certainly was no neglect on his part. The second member

for Vancouver-East (Mr. MacDonald), as the former Attorney-General,

knows better than anyone in this House that the coroner and his service

are there to answer five questions: who, when, where, how and by what

means a person came to his or her death. He also knows that in capital

criminal cases that have proceeded to the courts and resulted in a

conviction and a sentence, the answers to those five questions are

implicit in the material which is available in the court either as

evidence — or, as in the case of Olson, in the statements that were

made during the concluding hours of those proceedings. It is strictly

in accordance with the policy of the coroner service in those cases

that there be no inquiry. Hence there was neither a refusal to hold one

nor was the coroner negligent. The opportunity for the exercise of my

power did not arise.

Under the present chief coroner,

however, the practice of holding an inquiry has been instituted,

because in previous years when files were open with respect to the

death of a person by criminal conduct, there was never any formality

taken with respect to the closing of that file. On this occasion the

chief coroner instructed Dr. Aske, one of his regional coroners, to

hold an inquiry, and by reason of the circumstances it was an extensive

and thorough inquiry and, in that method, the case was thoroughly

reviewed. Dr. Askey has made his report and has made it public.

Therefore the inquiry and the responsibilities of the Coroners Act

have, in that respect, been fully discharged.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that what the Attorney-General has said now on

the matter of the Crown prosecutors has been cleared up. I don't think

that he should have used the words he did in the first place, but we

can leave that. I'm taking the two points in the order in which he

brought them up.

The ombudsman. The Attorney-General now

says, about a report that was prepared on horse-racing and betting,

that there are ongoing discussions after the legislation was introduced

into this House — and the Legislature of B.C. and the people of B.C.

had no opportunity to see the report — with the Minister of

Agriculture, and that the government of British Columbia may take a

position with respect to amendments to the Criminal Code. Why the devil

shouldn't the people of B.C. have a right to know that and know what

position we're taking? What has to be secret about that? Nothing. Under

most ministers and under this minister, in terms of the police

negotiations.... We heard from the Attorney-General from time to time

about his negotiations with Ottawa. Why should that be held in secret?

What's secret about that — seeking an amendment to the Criminal Code,

and the position you're taking with the Minister of Agriculture?

any case, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with the wording of

section

17 of the Ombudsman Act, under which the Attorney-General has

suppressed the report. That says that if the report should result in or

involve the disclosure of deliberations of the executive council....

The report doesn't do that; the report can't do that. If it did report

deliberations of the council — which, I presume, means what this

minister and that minister had to think about it and what kind of

debate there was in cabinet — it wouldn't be in the report. If it were,

as the ombudsman said: "Well, we take that part out and release the

rest." I think it's pure nonsense to say that this report involved

disclosure of the deliberations of cabinet. Nevertheless, that's what

the Attorney-General is saying. And I say it's secrecy, secrecy,

secrecy — hiding away from the public things they have a right to know,

asking the public to support your amendments to the parimutuel act and

not letting them see the reports, so they can see whether or not you're

making sense and carrying out the recommendations of the report, and if

not, for what reason.

This is a secretive government and

it's just a joke that this Attorney-General now says he's thinking

about bringing in freedom-of-information legislation. I'd hate to think

what it will be if this kind of an exception can be made. The minister

[ Page 8335 ]

says

that the ombudsman wanted to see the files of the ministry and there

were cabinet submissions in there. Well, if they reveal how people

deliberated in cabinet under the meaning of that section, take them out

and show them the rest — open your files. I think it's a very

reprehensible case of secrecy in government, the very opposite of open

government, being practised by the Attorney-General.

terms of the inquest, the Attorney-General is taking the position on

the Olson thing that he had, as he said in his letter.... He didn't

point out anything more than saying: "I have no authority to direct an

inquest." All that

section says is that the Attorney-General may order

an inquest where a coroner refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which

ought to be held. This isn't a court of law, and it's the

Attorney-General rather than me, I think, who's getting very technical

about these things. What that

section says is that where the

Attorney-General thinks there should be an inquest into a death, he has

the authority to order it, because the coroner service isn't doing it.

And if you can have an inquiry, you can have an inquest. The criminal

trial and proceedings were all over, the appeal procedure had been

exhausted, as far as I know, and it should have been an open inquest.

hide behind a very technical

interpretation of that

section is, I

think, again an example of very secretive government. I think that we

the people of British Columbia were entitled, in that very tragic Olson

thing, to an open inquest, which happens in the case of ordinary

deaths. In these very exceptional and tragic circumstances the public

had a right to an open hearing. There may have been certain things that

could not be adduced before a public inquest in the Olson matter —

things that were adduced to a private inquiry and could not be to a

public inquest. It's possible. I can't imagine what they might be,

because I think that when you investigate a series of deaths of that

kind everything should be made available. Whether they are statements

of the accused relating to what has happened or not, they should be

made available once the criminal procedures are over. Except out some

things if you will, and argue in an open inquest that they should not

be revealed, but for goodness' sake, don't say that you have no

authority to order an inquest, when in my opinion — and in the plain

wording of that

section — the Attorney-General has that authority where

in his opinion an inquest ought to be held — where in his discretion

it's not going to be held and he thinks it should be.

I'd

like to say something very briefly about my old friend Les Bewley. In

saying that I don't know how you can treat some of these things that

former Judge Bewley.... I suppose he's still entitled to the name

judge, by all means. I might say very briefly in opening this subject

that I was given all kinds of dire intimations when I came to this

session that people were going to criticize me for what I had said

about the deputy Attorney-General. It hasn't happened, and if it does

I'll be glad to be the guest. I've always taken the position — and I

did in that case — that we have a good public service in the province,

and when things go wrong in a ministry, it's the minister who should

step in. I still think that. I still think that in the Rigg and Moran

case the Attorney-General should have ordered an investigation. I could

lay out the facts, but they' re already in Hansard . That's

still my opinion because I think that something went very wrong. I have

stronger criticism of the Rigg case than in a private lawsuit where the

matter is not being investigated — stronger criticism than was

expressed by the supreme court judge who heard a private case. He

criticized it. The Moran case was extracted from his review, because it

wasn't relevant at that stage in the private lawsuit. There should have

been a public inquiry into both of those cases, and the

Attorney-General sat on that public inquiry and prevented it from

taking place. He said: "Oh, there will be a private lawsuit and that

will be the public investigation."

Getting back to Judge

Bewley, he is speaking to the public of British Columbia today as an

authentic "bring back the rope, throw the key away" hard-liner in the

justice system. I think it's kind of strange to read what he really did

in terms of adjudicating in the Rigg case. I think it should be read

into the record. At a later stage he said that he couldn't recall the

details, but that it was a petty case of its kind — barely worth taking

the time of a busy court. Yet that was a case of a young boy of 17 who

was accused of impaired driving. The breathalyser said so. In the

course of the decision itself, the judge at the time said that the

young man had been punished enough just by being brought to court. He

said: "...because if I convicted him I'd only give him an absolute

discharge anyway." Upon learning that Rigg had a defence lawyer named

John McAlpine retained privately, he continued: "So you're going to

have to pay the fees, oh? I hope it's a substantial one. Okay, that

will be his penalty." I find it very amusing that Les Bewley goes

through the province of British Columbia as a hard-liner, when in one

of the most dangerous offences as far as the public are concerned,

which is drunk driving, he handled the case in that particular way.

also want to ask the Attorney-General these questions. As the

Attorney-General and everybody knows, we've had problems relating to

the expenses of ministers of the Crown and perhaps other people. When

you get into that kind of thing — and, quite frankly, I'm talking about

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) and

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Neilson), in particular — and you're

the Attorney-General of the province, the matter of the extravagance of

expenses that are charged to the taxpayer is not a legal matter; it’s a

political matter. The Attorney-General may, and I think should, say to

himself: "Being a kind of trustee for public ethics in the province, I

should be concerned about that aspect too." If somebody really did pay

$440 for a hotel room in Montreal, I would think that is part of the

obligations and concern of the Attorney-General. But it's not a legal

matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we must relate our

remarks to the administrative actions of the department whose estimates

are before us. I'm sure the member is well aware of the provisions and

limitation of debate in Committee of Supply.

MR. MACDONALD:

I certainly am, and I'm also aware that the Attorney-General has a role

to play in that kind of extravagance which I've referred to, and an

even more significant role in terms of expenses which may not be

legitimate. In these matters you have that twofold situation: some you

may say are extravagant but legally accountable, while others appear to

be not legitimate expenses. Here the Attorney-General has a very

definite role, and I'm going to ask him a number of questions.

I'll

give three examples. In the case of the Clark Davey dinner, which the

Attorney-General and everybody else know all about, an account was

submitted to the government and paid and, after it all came out,

repaid. That Clark Davey was the guest justified the public nature of

the dinner, so that the amount — I think it was $61 — could be paid out.

[ Page 8336 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Once again, hon. member, the Chair is having trouble relating this to

the administrative actions of the Attorney-General, the minister whose

estimate is before us. The committee will be well served if we relate

our remarks to Committee of Supply.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'll certainly relate it to you, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking whether this

isn't a proper matter for investigation by the Attorney-General, and

what he's done about it. If the enforcement of the laws of British

Columbia and a reasonable investigation to see what should be done is

not a part of his responsibility, whose is it? Is it yours, Mr.

Chairman? No, it's the Attorney-General's. I think I'm perfectly in

order.

In the case of that dinner, a very serious question

is raised as to the validity, the legitimacy, of the charge against the

public purse. In the case of the dinner at Prince George, where the

Minister of Health sat down with others and wine was ordered, with food

— and again this is well known to the Attorney-General — we have a

question of the legitimacy of the expense; not the extravagance, but

the legitimacy of it. The story is well known: there you have a bill

that was changed by the hotel at the behest of government because the

Finance authorities said that liquor could not be paid for. The bill

then submitted was, on its face, a false bill. It said that the

dinners, which had been $6.15 or something, were now $10 for each of

the guests. That's not true. The bill was a false one. So a false bill

comes into the government of British Columbia and is paid. That raises

a serious question of the legitimacy of that kind of transaction,

third example would be the Arizona trip of the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). Again, its extravagance is a

political question, but the legitimacy of the expense claim is one that

an Attorney-General cannot ignore. The public is entitled to say that

this Attorney-General, in terms of his role, has made some

investigation of these matters. I simply ask what the Attorney-General

has done.

The transcripts of the public accounts committee —

what has already been stated before the public — raise a question. That

kind of question was very quickly resolved by the government in the

case of the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). I have

to make that comparison.

In view of these three cases, which

raise serious questions as to the legitimacy of the expense, I'm asking

the Attorney-General.... And if it were not legitimate — say the

Arizona trip had been arranged well ahead of time, perhaps when the

minister was a private MLA, as a holiday, and later converted into a

business thing, but not legitimately, so that the taxpayers should not

be asked to pay $1,506 — has the Attorney-General inquired or taken any

steps to see that what happened in these three cases is not the kind of

thing that warranted a very thorough investigation in the terms of the

hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour? So I'm asking him those

questions.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the

matter of ministerial expenses, the answer is very clear. Allegations

of extravagance are a matter properly within the jurisdiction of the

Minister of Finance in his capacity as chairman of the Treasury Board,

and I'm certain that he is discharging his responsibility in that

respect.

With regard to any allegations that any particular

expense may not be legitimate, that raises the question as to whether

or not fraud is in place. The second member for Vancouver East and the

former Attorney-General of this province will be aware of that.

The

member attempts to compare the situation with that in which the hon.

member for North Vancouver–Seymour found himself. At the moment there

is no fair comparison that can be made, except one. In the case

involving the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour, a complaint was

made to the authorities in that regard by a citizen who became aware of

certain circumstances. I find it passing strange that the information

with respect to expenses of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs came specifically to the attention of one of the members of the

opposition, who was formerly a police officer, but what did they do?

Did they go to the authorities and say: "We have something that's very

strange, and perhaps you should investigate"? No, they sat on it and

used it for political purposes until, finally, they leaked it to a

newspaper. You see, Mr. Member, the comparison between the cases

involving the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour and the hon.

Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs falls apart in that

respect. It falls apart because of the failure on the part of your

members, and perhaps you, sir, to discharge your responsibility, if

indeed there is any basis for such concern.

Specifically you

asked me whether the Attorney-General is investigating the matter. I

said at the outset, and I say again today, that it has been referred to

the criminal justice division of this ministry, and every step

appropriate to the circumstances is being taken.

MR. MACDONALD:

The Attorney-General has answered the question in part. I'm not going

to get into an argument about how the information came to light. It's a

very good thing it did come to light. It's very much in the public

interest, and sometimes members of the opposition need bigger

investigative services that are not available — as they can be with a

paper. But that's a separate argument. Mr. Attorney-General, you ought

to be darned thankful that a thorough investigation was made, and you

ought to be very surprised that one of your own cabinet colleagues for

a long time has taken the fifth amendment on these things and refused

to give an explanation to the public. You, as the guardian of public

morality in the province, should be very surprised at that kind of

conduct.

You say that the distinction with the case of the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour is that a complaint was made. That's

not a distinction. The Attorney-General is the chief law enforcement

officer of the Crown and of the people of the province of B.C. If

something comes to his attention, he's bound to initiate inquiries

whether or not a private citizen has made a complaint to him. If it's

under your nose, look at it. Now you've said that you are looking at

it, that you are treating the thing seriously. All I can say is that

it's rather surprising that to this date we have not heard a report as

a result of that investigation. I would hope that the ministers

concerned would be forthcoming with you, in terms of that

investigation, as they have not been — I'm talking about the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — with the people who put up the

money: the people of the province of British Columbia. If that inquiry

and investigation is proceeding, so be it. I hope that at a proper

stage the Attorney-General will make a statement and that, in terms of

fairness,

[ Page

8337 ]

we'll have some kind of statement which will be

sufficiently detailed, that if there is a distinction between these

cases and that of the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis), in the interests of his peace of mind and the public's right to

know we'll be able to know what that distinction is.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LEVI:

I want to ask the Attorney-General some questions, and perhaps we can

get some assurances from him in respect to certain parts of the Olson

case. I don't want to go into that. What I would like the

Attorney-General to tell us is: what is now in place, or will be in

place, to assure the public that some of the truly unfortunate events

that took place in respect to that case cannot be repeated. I fully

realize that what the Attorney-General has to deal with in this matter

is two bureaucracies, a federal one and a provincial one.

I'm

thinking now of the penitentiary system, which is a federally operated

system, and his own administrative duties as the chief law enforcement

officer in the province. It's always been a great tragedy, not only in

this province but in all provinces, that over the last 30 years, to my

certain knowledge, we have had some very unfortunate occurrences

because there continue to be inadequate safeguards in respect to

dangerous offenders. It's true that there has been legislation which is

supposed or bring people who are dangerous offenders to the bar of

justice. I was a little surprised at Coroner Askey's report, in which

he asked for what I think he referred to as the return or

re-implementation of habitual criminal proceedings. Actually, he's

probably a little bit out of date. We do have dangerous sexual offender

legislation on the books. Not three months ago there was an individual

who was found to be a dangerous offender.

I can recall

that in the early sixties there were a number of cases not too

dissimilar to the recent Olson case in respect to the deaths of

children. As a result of that, the then Attorney-General of the

province and the federal people looked at the possibility of doing

something about offenders who were being discharged from the

penitentiary and who were considered dangerous, as estimated by

psychiatric and classification studies, the general feelings of the

police, and information that came out as a result of field reports for

parole applications — people knew that this particular individual who

was going to be released at the end of his sentence was a time-bomb. At

that particular time in the early sixties, there was a procedure by

which offenders were picked up at the gate of the penitentiary and

taken over to Riverview. There was a provision which they were able to

use. I think, if I remember rightly, that it was a provision of the

Mental Health Act — a

section which says that if the individual is

liable to be a danger to himself or the public, you can move....Unfortunately,

that was done in about a dozen cases. In at least three or four of the

cases.... The one I certainly remember was so prophetic that the

individual was subsequently convicted of another offence and committed

as what was then called a criminal sexual psychopath. They changed the

name shortly after that.

The difficulty I think we have has been a difficulty that I've always felt

it's high time this country got itself out of. I personally do not favour

a continuation of two distinct jurisdictions in respect to looking after inmates

of institutions. I think it's wrong and it's a duplication. I think

we have to find some way that the provincial governments will be responsible

for the prisoners they have in their provinces, because the prisoners who come

out of jail tend to stay in the province. I can recall many years ago when they

brought in the Matsqui drug institution. All of a sudden we found ourselves

in the most ridiculous situation of having inmates flown from all over Canada

to that institution because it was a drug institution. Afterwards, many of these

people were released here with all of the disabilities that offenders have,

one on top of the other. Some had a language barrier because there were many

— nothing. So there was a whole new problem put in the hands of parole

people and post-release agencies like the one I worked for.

The

difficulty in having two jurisdictions is that it's not always easy to

share the information. If we did share the information, and we'd got to

the stage where that information was shared, then it may be that we

would have been able to look at a case like Olson's and say: "This is a

dangerous offender. What can we do to protect the public?" I don't like

to say this, but I'm going to say it. I must say that the public, in

respect to very dangerous offenders, is completely without protection

in some cases. It's very tragic, but that is the case. We need to

introduce some procedures which are going to help us at the very first

indication we have that a dangerous offender is going to be released

into the community. We have to make a judgment, not because he's

finished his sentence, but rather whether the protection of the public

is going to be served. That's the great tragedy. It is important that

the public have a better understanding and a greater degree of

confidence so we can have this kind of protection. In trying to obtain

this protection I know there's always the question of whether in fact

you can literally scoop somebody off the street because you believe

that he's a danger. We don't want a second or third example of the

recent Olson case. There is a case that I won't refer to in any detail,

and it is one that took place in the north Island recently.

have a very serious gap in the exchange of information and real

understanding on the part of the parole board, the federal people and

the provincial people in respect to the continuing protection of the

public. You have two federal bodies who sit with all of the information

that's possible. In the files that they have we know that there's lots

of information dealing with an individual's record — his behaviour and

the prognosis. It doesn't necessarily have to be the psychiatric

prognosis. Some of it is observations by guards and classification

officers who have worked with the individual, and from time to time we

get to the psychiatrists. So sitting out there in the penitentiary

system, where a lot of them are, is an enormous amount of information

that somehow has to find its way to the attention of some part of the

Attorney-General's department, so they can be alerted to the fact that

we've got another walking time-bomb about to come out. He's coming out

because he's completed the legal part of his sentence or whatever that

process is. The public needs to be assured of this.

I'm not

dealing with the facts arising from the beginning of the Olson case.

I'm dealing with what happened afterwards, when we examine what took

place. Somehow we have to look seriously at how we deal with dangerous

offenders, in such a way that dangerous offenders are not just dealt

with out there in that island which is referred to as the penitentiary.

If there was ever an island in this province, it's the federal

penitentiary system. It operates out there on its own, completely

responsible to Ottawa.

[ Page 8338 ]

I'd

like the Attorney-General, when he makes some observations about the

safeguards — which is what I asked him at the beginning of my remarks —

about what kind of procedures exist, what warning signals exist on

behalf of the penitentiary system in which they notify police

authorities in this province that so and so is coming out and he's very

dangerous.... This information is there, but it is not necessarily

always forthcoming. It's not always sent.

The

Attorney-General made some remarks some weeks ago with respect to the

RCMP. He was wanting to look at the operation of the criminal

investigation branch. Okay, let him look at that, but there are other

things that have to be looked at too. Where are the warning signals?

Who gets advised? Who really knows? Today, in this day and age of

computers and information retrieval, it should not be difficult for us

know what is coming down the pike in terms of people coming out of the

penitentiary. We know that in the penitentiary system there are a lot

of people who are dangerous. In the provincial system we are only at

the stage in some respects of early identification. There have got to

be some warning signals. If there aren't then we will get a repeat of

the two very tragic cases we've had — at least two, and there are more

if one goes back three or four years.

So I ask the

Attorney-General: what kind of guarantees does the public have in

respect to dangerous offenders, and what can we use in terms of

existing law to get them off the street if a number of people are

convinced that these people are dangerous and are likely to murder,

rape or do somebody harm? Those are the kinds of things I think the

public needs to know. If there aren't those procedures in place, then

in this House we had better discuss the desirability and how we will do

it. I know that the civil liberties people are sitting out there

watching for some kind of big hammer that might be used. If that's the

case, because the issue of dangerous offenders is very much before us,

perhaps we should put it in front of a standing committee of the House.

It needs to be discussed. The public have to have an understanding

about it. I think that the great sadness in all of this is that in many

cases dealing with dangerous people who are inside, we really don't

know what to do, and people find it very difficult to admit that there

sometimes are not solutions to people.

The final thing I

want to say to the minister is this. If one views a longitudinal study

of a number of records of dangerous offenders, he will find what, in my

opinion, is one of the greatest gaps in our judicial system: the

inability of the judiciary to understand the sentencing process in such

a way that it will protect the public. My colleague from Vancouver East

made some reference to Judge Bewley. Judge Bewley and I once had at it

on a panel, in which I recommended that because the judges know so

little about it, it's high time we had sentencing panels rather than

judges trying to understand the whole sentencing process.

Frankly,

if you examine Olson's record........ Go back 20 years and look at all

the offences. I am absolutely confounded that this fellow wasn't

somehow put in the bag as either a criminal sexual psychopath.... No,

that's not true. He couldn't be made a criminal sexual psychopath as he

had not been convicted of those offences. But as a habitual criminal —

as the legislation changed it, a dangerous offender — somewhere along

the line.... You see, that whole process came into some disrepute 20

years ago. Unfortunately it became a big gun, and it was used in such a

way that even an individual who's now a judge admitted in a recent

interview that they were catching the people who were burned out. We

need legislation that catches the people that are just setting the

world on fire. But if one examines the sentencing process.... Many

times when you examine the sentences that are given, particularly to

dangerous offenders.... I, personally, sometimes scratch my head.

saw one just a week ago. I don't know if it would be out of line, but

I'm not going to mention the guy's name. We just got through a trial

that may wind up costing the taxpayers over $10 million. I was

absolutely amazed that at least two people got sentences of less than

five years. There were 180 days of evidence put before them, and it was

an enormous conspiracy. All of this, and somebody gets three years.

What did we go through the exercise for? So he can go in and do 24

months if he wants to do his whole time, and then come out and leave us

stuck with the bill, and what else? That's what I'm talking about in

terms of the inability of the judiciary sometimes to understand that

kind of sentencing process.

I can recall offenders who've

committed serious crimes and who get ten years. They get out and then

commit another crime in six months and they wind up with 18 months.

I've never understood that process at all, but frankly, neither do the

judiciary. We do need a change in that kind of thing. The guarantees

don't just come because an individual is going to come out of jail.

What are we going to do with him if we know he's dangerous? We've got

to do something. We have to make the laws, and we'd better make them.

But

there's also the business of what he is going in there to serve, and

what kind of sentence. There's something wrong with the sentencing

process. In many cases it does not seem logical to me, and in the

profiles of criminal records that I've gone through, I find it the most

inconsistent process. So it's not just the business of when they come

out; it's how you deal with them when they go in. There need to be a

lot of safeguards in respect to this. Everybody has got to contribute

to that kind of process. That's what's important, because I have a

feeling — and I'm very sure, in some respects, about the feeling of

this — that many people out there feel that because there are two

jurisdictions here, the federal and the provincial, and there's the

Attorney-General in the middle getting ground up because he doesn't

really have any administrative handle on the thing.... It's not part of

his duties, but he's on the firing line when the trouble starts, and

Lord knows he's been on the firing line enough in the last year in

relation to this very serious case.

Mr. Chairman, the

question to the Attorney-General is what, after all this time — pretty

close to eight months — can the Attorney-General tell the House and the

people in the province about whether there are safeguards in place or

whether there is going to be a development of such safeguards. What

ideas does he have about this? That's what I'd like to hear the

Attorney-General talk about.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Chairman, I think the member raises matters which are